Patna High Court
BiharversusRamashankar Gupta
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the single judge was correct in granting the petitioner the matric‑trained scale from 1‑Oct‑2003 and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
Summary
The State of Bihar appealed a single judge’s order that granted Ramashankar Gupta, an assistant teacher appointed in 2000 with only matric qualification, the matric‑trained pay scale retrospectively from 1‑Oct‑2003. Gupta argued that, like teachers in the Chandrakant and Ramakant Yadav cases, he should receive the same benefit despite the delay in his training examination, which was held in 2004 and results published in June 2005. The State contended that Gupta, lacking higher qualifications at appointment, was not entitled to the earlier date and that the rule‑11 provisions only allowed the trained scale after passing the exam. The single judge relied on the precedent that the government could relax rule‑11 as a one‑time measure and grant the trained scale from a reasonable earlier date. On appeal, the High Court examined the ratio of the earlier cases and found the single judge’s decision within the bounds of law and equity, noting no palpable error, and therefore dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether an assistant teacher appointed with only matric qualification is entitled to the matric‑trained pay scale retrospectively from 1‑Oct‑2003 under the precedent of Chandrakant and Ramakant Yadav cases.
- Whether Rule 11 of the Bihar Elementary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 1991 precludes granting the trained scale before the date of passing the training examination.
- Whether the single judge’s order contains any palpable error or illegality warranting interference by the appellate court.
Subjects
- pay scale
- matric trained scale
- parity
- discrimination
- Article 14
- Rule 11
- teachers appointment
- letters patent appeal
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.129 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19091 of 2014
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Director (Primary Education), Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Education Officer, Patna.
6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Ramashankar Gupta S/o Sri Sheomuni Sah R/o Mohalla Salempur Dumra,
P.O. B.V. College, P.S.-Airport, Rajabajar, District Patna, Presently Posted in
Navsrijit Primary School Bank, Maner, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prashant Pratap, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ujjawal Bhushan, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 10-02-2026
The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
State of Bihar, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 30.01.2024 passed in CWJC No.19091 of 2014.
2. The original writ petition was filed by the respondent,
Ramashankar Gupta, seeking a mandamus directing to the
respondent-State to grant him matric trained scale of pay w.e.f. the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
2/15
date the other similarly situated untrained teachers were granted
the same i.e. 01.10.2003 along with all consequential benefits.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed to
the post of Assistant Teacher in the district of Saharsa vide memo
no.619-14 dated 11.04.2000 by the District Superintendent of
Education, Saharsa, following the recommendation of the B.P.S.C.
The State Government vide Notification No.2055 dated
01.10.1991, promulgated the Bihar Elementary School
Appointment Rules 1991 which prescribed the minimum requisite
qualification as 45% marks in matriculation or equivalent. The
petitioner further contends that subsequent to his appointment, he
was sent for training during 2000-2001 session and completed his
training successfully. The examination of the training course was
conducted in the year 2004 and the result were published on
20.06.2005. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that he
completed the intermediate Arts in the year 2009 and B.A. in the
year 2012.
4. The petitioner seeks relief primarily on the grounds of
parity, contending that the present matter is squarely covered by
the ratio decidendi in Chandrakant & others Vs. The State of
Bihar & Others reported in 2010 (4) P.L.J.R.732. In the
aforementioned precedent, this Court granted relief to the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
3/15
petitioners therein and the petitioner herein asserts that his
circumstances are identical in nature. It is further the case of the
writ petitioner that the Department issued Letter no.122 dated
10.02.2012, pursuant to which the benefits of the Resolution no.
790 dated 29.07.2011 were extended to all the untrained
appointees who successfully cleared their training examination till
June, 2005 given that the petitioner was declared successful in the
examination in the first attempt, but his pay scale was
subsequently fixed in the ‘Matric Trained Scale’ by the concerned
Drawing and Disbursing Officer w.e.f. the date of publication of
the result of the training i.e. 20.06.2005. The grounds raised in the
writ petition emphasize that the action of the Respondents
specifically in granting the trained scale w.e.f. the date of passing
of the training examination is manifestly arbitrary and
discriminatory. Such actions creates an unlawful classification,
particularly as peers appointed alongside the petitioner have
already been promoted to the cadre of Headmaster within the
district. Aggrieved by this disparity, the petition formally filed a
representation before the respondents for redressal of his
grievance, but nothing productive came out of it.
5. After issuance of notice a counter affidavit was filed
by the respondent no.4, the Deputy Director, Primary Education,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
4/15
Government of Bihar, Patna, wherein the State took a categorical
stand that the petitioner at the time of his appointment on
11.04.2000, possessed only the qualification of Matriculate and
completed his Intermediate Arts in 2009 and B.A. in 2012;
however, at the material time, he did not qualify as a teacher with
higher academic credentials. Consequently, the petitioner was
granted the benefit of trained scale effective from the date of
passing of the training on 20.06.2005. The respondent maintains
that there is no ambiguity and patent illegality in this
determination. The petitioner’s claim for the trained scale effective
from 01.10.2003 is untenable and legally unsustainable, as he was
neither trained nor held higher qualification as on 01.10.2003.
Respondent no.4 further contended that the allegation of
discrimination is wholly misconceived. It is submitted that the
benefit of notional trained scale was restricted to those possessing
higher qualification and was not applicable to “Matric Untrained”
candidates such as the petitioner. It was further stated in the
counter affidavit that “Unequals cannot be treated equally” arguing
that a holder of the minimum qualification (Matriculate) cannot
claim parity with those holding higher qualifications in matters of
grant of pay scale and notional benefits. Therefore, the claim of the
writ petitioner for treatment of trained teacher with effect from
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
5/15
01.10.2003 is misconceived as he completed his training
successfully on 20.06.2005.
6. The writ petitioner subsequently filed a rejoinder
affidavit in response to the counter filed by the respondent no.4,
wherein he reiterated and reaffirmed that his case is squarely
covered by the precedents of Chandrakant & others Vs. The
State of Bihar & Others and Ramakant Yadav Vs. The State of
Bihar & Others 2014 (1) PLJR 423. The latter was disposed of on
03.01.2014 clarifying that pursuant to the order passed in LPA
No.412 of 2003, benefits were to be extended to all individuals
who appeared for and cleared the 2004 training examination.
7. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order after
considering the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the respective parties, observed as follows:
“8. The case of the petitioner in brief is
that having completed his teachers training in the year
2000-01 session, the examinations for the same were
held only in the year 2004. The delay in holding of the
exams and publication of the result thereof on
20.6.2005 is solely attributable to the respondents and
the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the same
and the respondents cannot take benefit of their fault
by granting the financial benefits of matric trained
scale to the petitioner only from 20.6.2005. The
contention being that either the petitioner be granted
the benefits of matric trained scale from an earlier
date or at least w.e.f. 1.10.2003 ie the date on which
the petitioners of the case of Chandra Kant (supra)
were granted the said benefit.
9. Coming to the decision in the case of
Chandra Kant (supra), it may be stated here that Rule
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
6/15
11 of the Bihar Elementary School Teachers
Appointment Rules, 1991 provides for appointment of
trained candidate in matric trained scale and of
untrained candidates in matric untrained scale. It
further stipulates that the service of the untrained
appointees will be terminated, if without sufficient
reasons they did not participate in the training when
required to do so and further after training, an
examination shall be held and those candidates who
failed therein will be afforded another opportunity. If
they fail again then their services will be terminated.
After passing of the examination, the candidates shall
be granted the matric trained scale.
10. The learned Division Bench in
considering Rule 11 of the Bihar Elementary School
Teachers Appointment Rules held that there was no
dispute with respect to the fact that the untrained
teachers could get the higher scale only on fulfilling
the conditions prescribed in Rule 11 ie only on passing
the training examination. However, at the same time,
the learned Division Bench found merit in the
submission advanced on behalf of the appellant in the
said case that when the examination could not be held
within two years inspite of the direction of the Apex
Court, the State Government which has the necessary
powers must relax Rule 11 of the Rules as a one time
measure and take a prompt decision to grant matric
trained scale to the teachers who have passed the in-
service training examination in June, 2005 from any
date which may be found suitable and reasonable so
as not to affect such teachers adversely for the unusual
delay in holding the training examination. It
accordingly directed the respondents to take
appropriate decision in the light of the observations
and directions indicated therein. Paragraph nos.30
and 31 in the judgment of Chandra Kant (supra) are
reproduced herein below for ready reference:
“30. Coming to the last issue, we
find merit in the submission advanced on
behalf of the appellants that due to inability of
the State Government to hold the required
examination within a reasonable time, the
appellants who were successful, have suffered
undue hardship. In that view of the matter,
when the examination could not be held within
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
7/15
two years in spite of directions of the Apex
Court and even later, as per directions of this
Court, we are of the view that the State
Government which has the necessary powers,
must take steps to relax Rule 11 of the Rules as
a one time measure within a reasonable time
and take a prompt decision to grant matric
trained scale to the teachers who have passed
the in-service training examination in
June,2005 from any date which may be found
suitable and reasonable so as not to affect such
teachers adversely for the unusual delay in
holding the training examination. It would be
reasonable and appropriate to grant matric
trained scale to such teachers as indicated
above from any reasonable date, may be from
the date when the period of two years fixed by
the Apex Court for completing the training of
such teachers expired without compliance or
even from 1-10-2003, i.e. when actual payment
in Matric trained scale was stopped. Keeping
in view the requirements of Article 14 of the
constitution, benefit of advancing the date for
grant of Matric trained scale, as indicated
above will also be made available to such
teachers who may pass the training
examination in the second attempt. For them
the date will vary but benefit should be on
same lines as given to those who have passed
in the first attempt.
31. We, accordingly direct the
respondents to take appropriate decision in the
light of observations and directions indicated
above within three months from today.”
11. Subsequently, in the case of Ramakant
Yadav vs. State of Bihar and others (2014 (1) PLJR
423), the question arose as to whether the benefit for
grant of matric trained scale from 1.10.2013 to
teachers appointed as untrained is available only to
those appointed in the year 1994 and earlier or will it
also be available to untrained appointees after 1994
provided they had passed the in-service training
examination till 2005. The Division Bench of this
Court took note of the judgment in the case of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
8/15
Chandra Kant (supra) and held that the benefit of
matric trained scale from 1.10.2003 was extended for
one time relaxation of Rule 11 not only to persons
appointed only in 1994 but also to those appointed till
the year 2000 who had cleared the in-service training
examination in June, 2005. The Division Bench taking
note of the fact that the judgment in the case of
Chandra Kant (supra) had attained finality, not having
been questioned by anyone, in paragraph no.7 in the
case of Ramakant Yadav (supra) proceeded to hold as
follows:
“7. After Chandrakant (supra) the
respondents issued notifications dated
29.7.2011 and 10.2.2012. Cumulatively the
benefit of Matric trained scale from 1.10.2003
was extended by one time relaxation of Rule
11, to persons appointed not only in 1994 but
also to those appointed till the year 2000 but
who had cleared the in-service training
examination in June, 2005, or from the relevant
date for those who passed in the second
attempt.”
12. So far as the facts of the instant case is
concerned, the petitioner was appointed as an
Assistant Teacher on 11.4.2000. Though he was sent
for training in the 2000-01 session, however, the
examination for the same was conducted by the
respondents only in the year 2004 and the result of the
same published on 20.6.2005. The petitioner had
cleared his training examination in his first attempt.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances
of the case as also in view of the observation of the
Division Bench of this Court as held in paragraph
nos.30 and 31 in the case of Chandra Kant (supra) as
quoted herein above and in paragraph no.7 in the case
of Ramakant Yadav (supra) as quoted herein above,
this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has
made out a case for grant of relief in similar terms as
in the case of Chandra Kant (supra) ie for grant of
trained scale at least from 1.10.2003.
14. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the writ application is allowed with a
direction to the respondents to grant matric trained
scale to the petitioner from 1.10.2003 and the financial
benefits be paid to the petitioner within a period of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
9/15
four months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order.”
8. The learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of
the State submitted a written note asserting that the factual matrix
in the case of Chandrakant & Ramakant Yadav is distinguishable
from that of the writ petitioner. The primary contention raised by
the learned Advocate General is that the individuals in the
Chandrakant case (Supra) as well as Ramakant Yadav case (Supra)
possessed superior qualification whereas the writ petitioner was
merely a matriculate as on the date of his appointment. The
timeline of the petitioner’s progression is as follows:
• Training period-Attended training session
during 2000-2001.
• Examination – Appeared in 2004.
• Results – The results for the petitioner and
similarly situated candidates were officially
published on June 20, 2005.
While the petitioner seeks parity with the relief granted
in Chandrakant case (Supra) as well as Ramakant Yadav case
(Supra)-specifically the implementation of the matric trained scale
effective from 01.10.2003 whereas the State Government fixed the
matric trained scale in case of the writ petitioner from the date of
publication of the training result on 20.06.2005 in strict adherence
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
10/15
to the statutory mandate of the Bihar Elementary School
Appointment Rules, 1991. Consequently the learned Advocate
General contended that since the respondent/writ petitioner is not
covered with the judgments of Chandrakant case (Supra) as well as
Ramakant Yadav case (Supra) as he did not hold the higher
qualification at the time of his appointment, the precedents relied
upon by him are inapplicable. It was further argued that the relief
granted by the learned Single Judge was founded upon an
erroneous application of law to these specific facts, and therefore,
cannot be sustained.
9. In the case of Chandrakant & others Vs. The State
of Bihar & Others reported in 2010 (4) P.L.J.R.732, the Division
Bench of this Court while adjudicating upon this specific legal
issue, observed as follows:
“29. In view of aforesaid discussions
and findings, we find ourselves in agreement
with the views of the learned single judge that
grant of lower scale of pay to untrained
teachers is in conformity with rule 11 of the
Rules and is also based on sound reasons.
Hence, it is not possible to issue a writ of
mandamus to implement the recommendations
of the FAC. Grant of matric trained scale to
untrained teachers cannot be directed by this
Court, particularly due to provisions in the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
11/15
Rules. In that view of the matter the Apex
Court also in the case of Ram Vijay Kumar v.
State of Bihar (supra) directed only for
completing the training of untrained teachers
within two years.
30. Coming to the last issue, we find
merit in the submission advanced on behalf of
the appellants that due to inability of the State
Government to hold the required examination
within a reasonable time, the appellants who
were successful, have suffered undue hardship.
In that view of the matter, when the
examination could not be held within two
years in spite of directions of the Apex Court
and even later, as per directions of this Court,
we are of the view that the State Government
which has the necessary powers, must take
steps to relax rule 11 of the Rules as a one time
measure within a reasonable time and take a
prompt decision to grant matric trained scale
to the teachers who have passed the in-service
training examination in June, 2005 from any
date which may be found suitable and
reasonable so as not to affect such teachers
adversely for the unusual delay in holding the
training examination. It would be reasonable
and appropriate to grant matric trained scale
to such teachers as indicated above from any
reasonable date, may be from the date when
the period of two years fixed by the Apex Court
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
12/15
for completing the training of such teachers
expired without compliance or even from 1-10-
2003, i.e. when actual payment in Matric
trained scale was stopped. Keeping in view the
requirements of Article 14 of the constitution,
benefit of advancing the date for grant of
Matric trained scale, as indicated above will
also be made available to such teachers who
may pass the training examination in the
second attempt. For them the date will vary
but benefit should be on same lines as given to
those who have passed in the first attempt.
31. We, accordingly direct the
respondents to take appropriate decision in the
light of observations and directions indicated
above within three months from today.”
10. In the case of Ramakant Yadav Vs. The State of
Bihar & Others reported in 2014 (1) PLJR 423, this Court has not
only relied upon the Division Bench decision in Chandrakant case
(Supra), but also held as follows:
“6. The application is opposed by learned
counsel appearing for the respondents-State of Bihar
who submits that at the time of his appointment on
11.4.2000, the petitioner was only a matriculate and
he completed his I.A. in the year 2009 and B.A. in the
year 2012. As such, the petitioner cannot be said to be
a teacher with higher qualification and thus rightly got
the benefit of matric trained scale from the date of
passing of his training examination on 20.6.2005.
Learned counsel further submitted that so far as the
judgment in the case of Chandra Kant (supra) is
concerned, the same is not applicable in case of the
petitioner. The petitioners in the said case, though
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
13/15
were untrained assistant teachers having been
appointed in elementary schools however, all of them
were possessing higher qualification of Intermediate,
Graduate or Post Graduate which the petitioner of the
instant case did not possess. They were granted matric
trained scale for some period which was subsequently
stopped and orders were passed for recovery in 20
equal instalments of the benefit/amount disbursed to
them. It was on those facts that the said case was filed
and it was in the peculiar facts of that case that the
observation was made which is being wrongly relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted
that the allegation of discrimination is misconceived
and misplaced. Benefit of matric trained scale was
given only to those untrained teachers who possessed
higher qualification. Grant of similar benefit to the
petitioner would be treating two unequals as equal.
Learned counsel finally submits that the State
Government came out with a resolution dated 5.1.2015
taking into consideration the decisions of this Court in
the case of Chandra Kant (supra) and Rama Kant
Yadav (supra) as also the resolutions dated 29.7.2011
and 13.9.2013. It provides that those persons with
higher qualification who were appointed as per the
Bihar Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules,
1991 prior to 5.9.1997 ie the date of decision in SLP
no.23187/1996 and who had cleared the training
examination in their first attempt would be granted
notional benefit of matric trained scale for the period
5.9.1999 to 30.9.2003 and financial benefits w.e.f.
1.10.2003. Those who had cleared their examination
after 5.9.1997 but in their first attempt would also get
the benefit of matric trained scale w.e.f. 1.10.2003.
Those teachers who did not clear their training
examination in the year 2004 or who did not appear in
the training examination in the year 2004 but cleared
the same in the year 2007 will be granted benefit of
matric trained scale from the date of the examination
ie 31.7.2007. The resolution finally stated that the
benefits granted to the teachers would be subject to
the result of the review petition.
7. Having heard Mr. Amarendra Kumar,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gyan
Shankar, learned A.C. to G.P.6 appearing for the
State-respondents, the relevant facts for the purpose of
the instant application are that on the recommendation
of the BPSC, the petitioner was appointed as an
Assistant Teacher in the district of Saharsa on
11.4.2000. He was sent for training in the 2000-01
session for which the examinations were held in the
year 2004 and the results were published on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
14/15
20.6.2005. The petitioner cleared his training
examination in his first attempt.
9. Coming to the decision in the case of
Chandra Kant (supra), it may be stated here that Rule
11 of the Bihar Elementary School Teachers
Appointment Rules, 1991 provides for appointment of
trained candidate in matric trained scale and of
untrained candidates in matric untrained scale. It
further stipulates that the service of the untrained
appointees will be terminated, if without sufficient
reasons they did not participate in the training when
required to do so and further after training, an
examination shall be held and those candidates who
failed therein will be afforded another opportunity. If
they fail again then their services will be terminated.
After passing of the examination, the candidates shall
be granted the matric trained scale.”
11. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other
hand submitted that there is no palpable illegality or perversity in
the order of the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge
is quite justified in relying on the judgments of this Court in the
case of Chandrakant as well as Ramakant Yadav and therefore, the
Letters Patent Appeal should be dismissed.
12. Upon a through examination of the ratio decidendi
of the aforementioned precedents applied to the present factual
matrix, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge was well
within bounds of justice in granting the matriculate trained scale to
the writ petitioner effective from 01.10.2003 and further directing
the financial benefit to be paid to the petitioner. Since the scope of
interference in the Letters Patent Appeal is inherently limited. The
appellate jurisdiction under this framework is corrective in nature
and is reserved strictly for the rectification of palpable error or
Patna High Court L.P.A No.129 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
15/15
legal infirmities. In the absence of any discernible illegality or
manifest error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this
Court finds no grounds for intervention. Accordingly, the Letters
Patent Appeal stands dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
( Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…