IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3252 of 2004 GEETA DEVI, wife of Late Sachidanand Prasad, resident of village- Khangah, P O & P S. Arwal, District- Jehanabad Now ( Arwal). ….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar Patna. 4. District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad (Arwal). 5. Area Officer, Arwal South, P S. Arwal, District- Jehanabad, at present Arwal. … Respondents. With CWJC No.3553 of 2004 GEETA DEVI, wife of Late Sachidanand Prasad, resident of village- Khangah, P O & P S. Arwal, District- Jehanabad at present Arwal. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad. 5. Area Officer, Arwal South, P S. Arwal South, District- Jehanabad. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 08.11.2010 CWJC No. 3252 of 2004 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of this writ application, the services of the petitioner has been terminated by order 2 dated 29.7.2004 and as such he would not like to press this writ application as with regard to the claim of the petitioner relating to her promotion. That being so, this writ application is dismissed as not pressed. CWJC No. 3553 of 2004 In this writ application, the aforementioned petitioner has prayed for payment of her salary as also rendering account of the amount paid to her for the period October 2003 to January 2004. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the decision to reduce the salary of the petitioner from Rs.8881/- to RS.7085/- per month and thus deduction of a sum of Rs.1826/- per month from October 2003 onwards was wholly arbitrary. Counsel for the State on the other hand with the help of counter affidavit has tried to justify the stand of respondents as with regard to the reduction of the salary and emolument of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had misrepresented about her being qualified as a trained teacher at the time of her initial appointment 3 though in course of departmental proceeding it was established that the petitioner had never passed the training examination. Counsel for the State in this context has referred to the order dated 29.7.2004 terminating the services of the petitioner and also further relied on an order of this Court dated 1.5.2006 in CWJC No. 15029/2004 whereby and whereunder the said order of termination of the service of the petitioner was not interfered by this Court leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. In the opinion of this Court, once it was found as a matter of fact that the petitioner was not a matric trained teacher at the time of her appointment, she could not have been allowed to get the benefit of matric trained scale of pay. The only other recourse open to the respondents for making payment of salary for the period of working till the petitioner had remained in service was to treat her as a Matric untrained teacher and therefore the decision of the authorities in reducing pay-scale and emoluments of the petitioner as also making recovery is not in any way vitiated in law. It is a clear case where the petitioner had herself misrepresented and therefore she cannot be 4 allowed to retain the benefit of such fraud/misrepresentation made by her. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)