DEVENDRA SINGH NEGI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioners in the present writ petitions are Assistant Teachers in Primary/Junior High School presently working in different parts of the State. One of the essential qualification for appointment as a teacher in primary school is a certificate known as "Basic Teaching Certificate". Admittedly, the petitioners did not possess this certificate. It was only this certificate of B.T.C. which would entitled the petitioner to be called as a "trained teachers". Admittedly, the petitioners did not have this qualification at the time of their initial appointment as primary teachers.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the order dated 8.1.2000 was passed by the "Basic Siksha Adhikari" entirely on misreading of the Order of Allahabad High Court dated 13.10.1999 inasmuch as the Allahabad High Court nowhere directed the concerned Authority to grant the salary of trained teacher to the petitioners. What was directed was to consider the claim of the petitioner. Since the Basic Education Officer granted the salary of trained teachers to petitioners, on a misreading of the High Court's order, it was for this reason, the "Basic Siksha Adhikari" reviewed its order dated 8.1.2000 vide order dated 9.5.2003 (which has been presently impugned in this writ petition) by which it was directed that the petitioners were not entitled for getting the salary of trained teachers. It is the considered opinion of this Court there is nothing wrong with the impugned order so far it holds that the petitioners were not entitled to the salary of the trained teacher. However, the consequential order dated 14.7.2003 which has also been impugned here states that the difference of the salary of the trained teacher and untrained teacher will be recovered from the petitioners. This order, in the opinion of this Court, is neither equitable nor fair as the petitioners never committed any fraud or concealed any fact from the concerned authorities as to their qualifications. The order by which the petitioners were getting the salary of trained teacher was passed by the "Basic Siksha Adhikari", which was passed on total misreading of High Court's order. In sum and substance, the petitioners are not at fault. Though in the concerned opinion of this Court, the petitioners were not entitled for the pay-scale of trained teachers, yet for the reasons stated above, the recovery being initiated against them and the order which are presently impugned are totally unjustified. Therefore, though this Court holds that the C.P.Ed. qualified teachers are not trained teachers and therefore are not entitled for the salary of a trained teacher, yet the recovery initiated against them is not proper, under the facts and circumstances of the case.