IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7900 OF 1998 ====================================================== 1. Nav Niyukt Prathmik Sikshak Sangh, Madhubani (Bihar) through its Secretary Arun Kumar Choudhary, having its office at Madhubani, P.S.- Madhubani, District-Madhubani. 2. Arun Kumar Choudhary, S/o Sri Muneshwar Choudhary, Assistant Teacher of Primary School, Dumri, Khwas Tole, P.S.-Rahika, District- Madhubani. At Present deputed for in-service training at Government Teachers Training College, Narar in the District of Madhubani. 3. Kailashpati Nirala, S/o Sri Satyadeo Yadav, Assistant Teacher of Middle School, Mahadeo Math, P.S.-Laukahi, District-Madhubani. At Present deputed for in-service training at Government Teachers Training College, Narar in the District of Madhubani. …….. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Special Secretary, Secondary Primary and Mass Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 5. District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani. 6. Principal, Government Teachers Training College, Nagar in the District of Madhubani. 7. Principal, Government Teachers Training College, Ghoghardiha, P.S.- Ghoghardiha, District-Madhubani. …… Respondents. ====================================================== APPEARANCE : For the Petitioners : Mr. Murli Manohar Singh, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha Mr. Md.Iftekhar Mahmood Mr. Prabhas Ranjan Mr. Hriday Kant Mishra For the Respondents : Mr. S.Raja Ahmad, AAG 9. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (The 22nd April 2011) (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) None of the parties is represented before us. This writ petition under Article 226 of the 2 Constitution is filed by the primary school teachers to challenge the action of the State Government in reducing scale of pay from Rs. 1200-2040 to Rs. 975-1540/- in pursuance of the Government Notification dated 31st December 1996. It appears that the petitioners (matriculates) were appointed as untrained primary school teachers in the pay scale of Rs. 1200- 2040/-. During the service, pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, under order dated 16th February 1998 the petitioners and several other untrained teachers were sent for training. Under the impugned Notification dated 31st December 1996 published on 3rd March 1997 the State of Bihar amended Rule 11(2) (x) of the Bihar Elementary Schools Appointment Rules, 1991 to pay to the untrained teacher in the pay scale of untrained teachers during the period of training. The petitioners have challenged the legality of the said Notification. According to the petitioners the said Notification tantamounts to reduction in their pay without affording opportunity of hearing to them. The above referred Rule 11 of the Rules of 1991, as it stood before its amendment in 1997, provided for different pay scales for untrained matriculate teachers and for trained matriculate teachers. The said Rule also provided for compulsory training for untrained teachers. Clause (ax) of Sub- Rule (2) of the said Rule 11 provided that during the training, a teacher would be entitled to a stipend as determined from time to time and that no salary would be payable for the period of training. Clause (a?k) thereof provided that after 3 completion of training and after passing of the examination a teacher would be entitled to a pay scale of a trained matriculate teacher. Thus, as the Rules then prevailed, on their appointment the petitioners who admittedly were untrained teachers, were not entitled to a pay scale of a trained teacher in the first place nor were they entitled to a salary during the period of training. By the impugned Notification the aforesaid Clause (xa) has been amended and the teachers like the petitioners were allowed to draw regular salary though in the scale of “untrained matriculate teacher” during the period of training. The grievance that the petitioners’ salary is being reduced without opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, is absolutely misconceived and requires to be rejected. Consequently, the petitioners’ claim for payment of salary in the scale of a matriculate trained teacher during the period of training also deserves to be rejected. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost. Patna High Court Dated the 22nd April 2011 NAFR/Sujit (R.M.Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran,J.)