IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1016 of 2003 Ram Surat Ram, Son of Shri Doma Ram, Resident of Village Nimi, P.S. Sonhan, District Kaimur. ----------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua). 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Kaimur (Bhabhua). --------- Respondents ----------- 3 02.07.2010 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as below:- “1(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to grant the matric trained pay scale to the petitioner with effect from the dates the other similar teachers are given. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to make arrears of the difference of salary to the petitioner after granting matric trained pay scale to the petitioner. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction commanding the respondents to make payment of matric trained scale to the petitioner regularly till further promotion in higher pay scale.” 2 In the opinion of this Court, such issue with regard to the grant of matric trained scale of pay to the teachers of Physical Education in absence of training course undergone by them has already been settled wherein it has been held that the teachers of Physical Education having completed either Certificate Course or remaining untrained at the time of his appointment would not be entitled for payment of salary of matric trained teacher. Subsequently, counsel for the State has also issued circular laying down norms of grant of pay-scale of trained teachers to the teachers of Physical Education where it has been provided that such trained scale of pay of teachers to them would be admissible if they have undergone two years Teachers Training Course. This aspect in fact have also been explained in the counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated as follows:- “------In this connection it is submitted that it is a fact that the petitioner was appointed in Matric untrained pay-scale. The petitioner was never appointed on the post either against physical trained teacher or against Matric trained teacher. The Rule 5 of the Bihar 3 Elementary school Appointment Rules 1991 for the first time payed the way for appointment of untrained persons as teacher but prior to coming into of the said rules untrained persons were not eye eligible for appointment as a teacher. The rule 11(2) of the said rules in clear terms provided that these candidates who are untrained shall be granted salary in the Matric Untrained scale. As the petitioner was also appointed in the Matric untrained scale initially in terms of the rule 5 read with rule 11(2) of the Bihar Elementary school appointment rules 1991 and so the petitioner is getting the pay scales of Matric untrained Teachers. 9. That it is stated that suffice to say that the statutory rule had made a distinction between a trained teachers and untrained teachers and from the day they entered into services they constituted a different class. The rule never made untrained teachers equal to that of trained teachers. In the face of the statutory rule it can not be said that the petitioner who is untrained teacher is equal to that of trained teachers who had been appointed in the Matric trained scale. The petitioner was never equal to trained teacher earlier nor he is now. 10. That it is further submitted that the nature of work performed by trained teachers is different and reliability is also higher and so it is a valid ground for providing different pay scale. The quality of work of a trained teacher is 4 certainly expected to be than untrained teacher and that can be a ground to provide the two different scale of pay vide A.I.R. 2002 S.C.W. 1991 and 1995(1) SSC 18.” The respondents in their counter affidavit have also specifically denied the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner in the writ application by taking following stand:- “------- it is stated that the case of the petitioner is not on similar footings to those the persons taking referred to by the petitioner. The petitioner was never appointed either on the post against physical trained teacher or on the post against Matric trained teacher. The fact is this that the petitioner was appointed on the post against Matric untrained and he is getting his salary accordingly as per pay-scale. Therefore no question arises for any arrear of the difference of salary.----“ Copy of such counter affidavit could not be served on the counsel for the petitioner who was found to be not available. Today also, counsel for the petitioner is not present and therefore, once this Court would find that the issue raised in this writ application stands settled, there would be no need to keep this writ application pending 5 awaiting the pleasure of the petitioner’s counsel to appear in this case as and when he would find convenient. That being so, this application must be and is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)