WP(C) 502/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mrs. N. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Deptt. representing the respondents No. 1,3 and 4. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel is present on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners, who are appointed as stipendiary teachers on a fixed pa y of Rs.900/- p.m. with the condition that they shall be entitled for regular sc ale of pay only on successful completion of Junior Basic Training, have approach ed this Court seeking direction for granting of regular pay scale from their dat es of appointment, rather than from the date of completion of junior basic train ing course of teachers. 3. It is submitted by Mrs. N. Saikia, learned counsel that the petitioners were selected for regular appointment and ought to have been appointed on regula r scale of pay and there wass no justification to appoint them initially on fixe d pay, and to grant them regular scale of pay only after completion of the teach ers training. It is submitted that some selected teachers have been appointed ag ainst regular posts in regular scale of pay and the petitioners too are entitled to receive regular scale of pay from their respective dates of appointments. 4. Resisting the claim made by the petitioners, Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned S tanding counsel submits that the petitioners were appointed as stipendiary teach ers and it was clearly stipulated in the appointment orders that they would be e ntitled to regular scale of pay only on successful completion of Junior Basic Tr aining (JBT) and having accepted the appointment with the said terms, they canno t seek regular scale of pay, 12 years after they were appointed with the said te rms. It is also submitted that the petitioners were appointed in the posts cr eated under the centrally sponsored Operation Black Board (O.B.B.) Scheme and si nce, it was provided that the teachers appointed under such scheme would receive fixed pay and would get regular scale of pay only after passing the Junior Basi c Training, there cannot be any justification for the claim made for regular sca le of pay, on the basis of appointment with such terms. 5. The learned Govt. Advocate further submits that the present case is squa rely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Babul Deka vs. State of Assam reported in 2009(2) GLT 9, where the Court while considering such claim of a group of similarly situated teachers refused to grant the benefit of regul ar scale, considering the contractual nature of appointment of the teachers. 6. In support of the contention of regular scale of pay, the learned counse l for the petitioner has referred to the orders passed by this Court on 10.2.09 in W.P.(C) No. 4340/07 (Dipak Kalita vs. State of Assam) and the order dated 18. 2.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 503/07 (Nilomoni Saikia vs. State of Assam), where a learn ed Single Judge of this Court directed consideration of the petitioners’ claim b y the departmental authorities. 7. On reading of the decision relied upon by Mrs. Saikia, I find that the p etitioners in those cases were founder teachers of Schools, which were provincia lised and they were not appointed as stipendiary teachers as in the present case . Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners in the pres ent case cannot be considered to be in the same footing as those of founder teac hers of provincialised schools. Accordingly, the decisions relied upon by the le arned counsel for the petitioners, in my view, have no application in the presen t case. 8. However, on reading of the facts in Babul Deka (supra) I find that the p resent petitioners are situated in the same footing as Babul Deka and others, an d, accordingly, I feel that the ratio of the Division Bench decision in Babul De ka squarely applies in the facts of the present case. In this case the Court he ld that the posts occupied by the petitioners are not posts created under any Ru les made under Article 309 of the Constitution and, therefore, the petitioners c annot seek anything more that what is offered to them under the contract of empl oyment. It is further recorded that it is for the State authorities to consider how best to utilize the services of the teachers considering its financial resou rces, need to continue such post and no legally enforceable right is found in fa vour of the petitioners. 9. Having regard to the above decision of this Court in Babul Deka & Ors, I find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismisse d. 10. It is pointed out that the petitioners have already been granted the reg ular scale of pay after completion of their Junior Basic Training and, therefore , rejection of the writ petition means that the claim for regular scale of pay p rior to completion of Junior Basic Training has been refused.