YOGENDRA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. MP. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to G.P. 11 for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by order as contained in Annexure 1 issued vide letter no. 1987 dated 3.11.1998 whereby and whereunder necessary directions have been given to recover excess salary paid to the petitioner in one lumpsum on account of wrong fixation of his salary.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the trained scale granted by the District Education Officer was not in accordance with law as the petitioner was not fulfilling eligibility criterian. It is also submitted by learned counsel that minimum eligibility for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in such schools was trained graduate and since the petitioner was not trained, his appointment itself was void ab initio. It is also submitted by learned counsel that on the basis of audit report certain discrepancies were found in grant of trained scale to the petitioner after giving him 12% of promotional benefit and, therefore, the order impugned as contained in Annexure 1 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.