JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. As both these cases involve common questions of facts and law, they were heard together and are being disposes of by this common Judgment. 2. Before proceeding with the Judgment it may be mentioned that after the hearing the counsels for the parties the judgment was reserved but thereafter the petitioners of both the writ petitions filed application for amendment of the writ petitions which were allowed by order dated 25.8.1987 and further hearing of the writ petitions commenced thereafter. In the meanwhile the respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R) have also filed their counter affidavit which they did not do earlier. 3. The petitioners in both, these writ petitions have prayed for quashing the orders as contained in letter No. 9/83-056/82 (Edn) 1260 dated 2.6.1982 being Annexure-11 in C.W.J.C. No. 1235 of 1982 (R) and 9/3/056/82 (Edn.) 1560 dated 2.6.1982 being Annexure-6 in C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R) and have also prayed for an appropriate writ directing the respondents, to give effect to the resolution dated 30.12.1981 being Annexure-1 in C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R) and Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C. No. 1235 of 1982 (R). 4. During the hearing of these writ petitions the counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties have referred to in extenso from various circulars, letters and notifications issued by the State of Bihar from time to time as also from the reports of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee and the report of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee. 5. Before referring to the aforementioned circulars and other documents issued by the State of Bihar from time to time the basic facts which are not at all in dispute may be noticed. 6. The petitioners in both the cases admittedly are teachers who at the relevant time were science graduates or holders of degree in Intermediate in science and they were appointed pursuant to a scheme commonly known as UNICEF SCHEME. The petitioners nos. 1 to 14 in C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 being initially qualified as untrained science graduate were appointed as teachers on a fixed pay of Rs. 296/-. The petitioners no. 15 to 20 thereof were untrained intermediate science teachers and have been getting a fixed salary of Rs. 249/- per month. The scale of pay of the petitioners allegedly by reason of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee was re-fixed at Rs. 296/-. The petitioners no. 15 to 20 thereof were untrained intermediate science teachers and have been getting a fixed salary of Rs. 249/- per month. The scale of pay of the petitioners allegedly by reason of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee was re-fixed at Rs. 785/- to 1210/- so far as untrained science graduates are concerned and Rs. 680/- to Rs. 965/- so far as untrained intermediate science teachers are concerned. It is also an admitted fact that with effect from 1.4.1981 the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee was implemented and all teachers began to get the scale of pay recommended by the said Committee, who have not opted in writing to retain the existing scales of pay in Form-D appended to 4th Schedule thereof. By virtue of or under the provisions of the aforementioned recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee, procedures have been laid down as to how and in what manner the scale of pay shall be fixed and pursuant thereto the revised pay scale was prepared and the same was paid with effect from 1st January, 1982. The resolution of the State Government accepting the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee is contained in Annexure-4 to C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R) and the scales of pay payable to the teachers in High and Primary School pursuant to said recommendations as contained in Annexure 5 to the said writ applications. The scales of pay applicable to the different grades of teachers are stated as under:- Middle Untrained-400-7-470-10-510 EB-10-540. Matric Untrained-535-10 645-15-6-690 EB-15-765. I. Sc. Untrained-680-15-890 EB-15-965. B.Sc. Untrained 785-25-1135-EB-25-1210. 7. It is admitted that the said resolution was implemented in respect of the petitioners and they have been getting the scales of pay in accordance with the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee and in fact received the salary in accordance with the said scales of pay for the months of January to March, 1982. By a letter dated 17.2.1982 the Regional Deputy Director of South Chotanagpur, Ranchi reiterated that the petitioners would be getting their salary in accordance with the said scales of pay in terms of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee which was to be implemented in their case also. It is asserted that the petitioners drew their respective salaries in terms of the revised scale of pay. It is asserted that the petitioners drew their respective salaries in terms of the revised scale of pay. However, it appears that after the said scales of pay were began to be given; the District Education Officer by a letter dated 21.5.1982 purported to direct that die petitioners would be getting, much less amount than what had been recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee. In terms of the said direction the intermediate Science Teacher were to receive salary in the scale of pay of Rs. 535/- to Rs. 765/- and untrained science graduate teachers were to be put in the scale of pay of Rs. 680-15-965. This letter dated 21.5.1982 is contained in Annexure-3 to C.W.J.C. No. 1969 of 1982 (R). 8. On or about 22.5.1984 the respondent no. 5 (The District Education Officer, Ranchi) further directed that according to the Deputy Director of Educational (Elementary) Bihar, Patna the teachers who were getting the fixed salary of Rs. 296/- would be getting Rs. 730/- per month and those teachers who were getting a fixed salary of Rs. 240/- would be getting Rs. 580/- per month. This letter is contained in Annexure-4 to the C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R). It further appears from the office order dated 2nd June, 1982 issued by the District Superintendent of Education of Ranchi, that the petitioners were to be put in the same scale of pay i.e. Rs. 535/- to 765/- as so far as untrained I. Sc. teachers are concerned and Rs. 730/- to Rs. 965/- so far as untrained B.Sc. teachers are concerned i.e. in terms of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee. This letter is contained in Annexure-'6' to C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R). However, the State of Bihar again by letter dated 4.9.1982 while reiterating that whereas untrained I. Sc. teachers would be getting the same scale of pay but the B.Sc. untrained teachers would be put in the scale of pay i.e. 680 to 965/-. This letter is contained in Annexure-7 to C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R); It is admitted on behalf of the petitioners that the aforementioned letter dated 4.9.1982 has not been implemented so far. 9. As stated hereinbefore, the petitioners of both the writ petitions aforementioned filed their respective applications for amendment which are allowed by an order of this Court dated 25.8.1987. 9. As stated hereinbefore, the petitioners of both the writ petitions aforementioned filed their respective applications for amendment which are allowed by an order of this Court dated 25.8.1987. In both the applications for amendment an emphasis was laid on the facts that the Director (Primary Education cum Deputy Secretary) Department of Education, Bihar in its letter dated 5.12.1979 stated that 3000 posts of teachers have been created out of which 1500 posts have been created for the Matric trained teachers scale of pay; 750 posts are earmarked for the science teachers in equal proportion i.e. 375 for I. Sc. trained and 375 for B.Sc. trained teachers. A copy of the said letter has been marked as Annexure-9 to C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R). It has further been asserted that thereafter under letter dated 20th February, 1981, 700 posts for science teachers were- created out of which 350 posts were allotted for I. Sc. teachers whereas 350 posts were allotted to Graduate Science Teachers. The petitioners by reason of the aforementioned statements sought to lay emphasis on the fact that sufficient sanctioned posts for appointment in the I. Sc. trained teacher and B.Sc. trained teachers were available much before the implementation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee. 10. It has further been asserted that the District Education Officer, Ranchi issued a letter dated 17.2.1982, wherefrom it would appear that 61 persons were put in the graduate trained scale of pay with effect from 1.4.1980 and out of the aforementioned 61 persons, six were science graduate wherefrom it would appear that there had been sufficient vacancy in the posts of science graduate trained teachers. A copy of the said letter dated 17.2.1982 is contained in Annexure-11 to C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R). 11. It further appears that the aforementioned District Education Officer, Ranchi further appointed many persons directly to the post of graduate in science and intermediate in science trained teachers by the letter dated 10.4.1982 as contained in Annexure-12 to C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R). 11. It further appears that the aforementioned District Education Officer, Ranchi further appointed many persons directly to the post of graduate in science and intermediate in science trained teachers by the letter dated 10.4.1982 as contained in Annexure-12 to C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R). The petitioners therefore, contend that from the aforementioned two letters as contained in Annexure-11 and 12 to C.W.J.C. 1269 of 1982 (R) it would appear that many teachers were appointed directly in clear contravention of the directions contained in the letter dated 5.12.1979 issued by the Director of Primary Education-cum-Deputy Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar as contained in Annexure-9 to the aforementioned application. It has further been contended that all the petitioners C.W.J.C. 1235 of 1982 excepting petitioners nos. 29, 33 and 36 were appointed as B.Sc. trained teachers and have been put in the scale of pay Rs. 850/- to 1360. It has further been alleged that from Annexure-14 of the writ application, it would appear that the petitioner no. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 in C.W.J.C. 1235 of 1982(R) were put in the scale of pay admissible Scale to the B.Sc. trained teachers with effect from the date when their qualification of B.Sc. trained teacher by letter dated 7.12.1983. The petitioners no. 3 and 4 have also been given the same benefit by a letter dated 16.8.1984 and the petitioner no. 1 was put in the aforementioned scale of pay by letter dated 1.9.1984 whereas the petitioner no. 2 had been granted the same benefit by letter dated 3.9.1984. The aforementioned letters are contained in Annexures 13, 14, 15 and 16 to C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982. The aforementioned scales of pay admissible to B.Sc. trained teachers have been given to them from the date of acquisition of the requisite qualifications by the petitioners concerned. 12. The petitioners have further asserted in the writ applications that similarly many teachers have been put in the scale of pay admissible to the B.Sc. trained teachers and, J. Sc. trained teachers respectively from the date of acquisition of the respective qualifications by them. 13. As stated herein before the respondents in each cases have filed their counter affidavits. In respective counter affidavits it has been alleged that the petitioners were originally appointed at fixed pay of Rs. 175/- which was subsequently changed to fixed pay of Rs. 296/-. The aforementioned fixed amount of Rs. 13. As stated herein before the respondents in each cases have filed their counter affidavits. In respective counter affidavits it has been alleged that the petitioners were originally appointed at fixed pay of Rs. 175/- which was subsequently changed to fixed pay of Rs. 296/-. The aforementioned fixed amount of Rs. 296/- was being paid with effect from 1.4.75. In view of the fact that there had been no vacancy, the untrained Intermediate were put in the scales of pay of Rs. 230/- which was revised to Rs. 680/- to Rs. 960/-. This according to the respondents, was in terms of recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee and is contained in Annexure C to the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 1235 of 1982(R). It is admitted in the said counter affidavit that the different District Education Officers started giving different scales of pay to the category of untrained teachers and as such the Education Department issued orders under the letter no. 1660 3.7.1971, wherein it was specifically laid down that such untrained teachers would be given fixed scale of pay of Rs. 296/- per month which is the initial of the sanctioned posts of I. Sc. (untrained) teachers. After there commendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee was published in May, 1981 the government after considering the said recommendation adopted a resolution accepting the same. There after again various local officer under the Education Departments started giving different scales of pay to the untrained hands by mistake and, therefore, the Education Department of the State of Bihar issued the order dated 2.6.1982 (Annexure-11 to C.W.J.C. 1235 of 1982 (R). wherein, it clearly averred that till such time government orders are not issued in constitution with the Finance Department with regard to the fixation of the scale of pay of untrained teachers those working against the I. Sc. trained teachers and had been getting a fixed pay-scale of Rs. 296/- per month, would get the initial of the revised scale of pay of the Intermediate untrained hands i.e. Rs. 730-1080/- and similarly by letter dated 4.9.1982 (Annexure-12 to C.W.J.C. 1235 of 1982) it was directed that the petitioners thereof would be getting the scale of pay of Rs. 580/869/- which is admissible to Matric trained teachers and the same would be their basic grade. 14. 730-1080/- and similarly by letter dated 4.9.1982 (Annexure-12 to C.W.J.C. 1235 of 1982) it was directed that the petitioners thereof would be getting the scale of pay of Rs. 580/869/- which is admissible to Matric trained teachers and the same would be their basic grade. 14. It may be mentioned that the scale of pay so far as the teachers appointed under the UNICEF SCHEME are concerned the same were as follows:- Government Primary School. Matric Trained Intermediate Revised Science Teachers 230 535-765 240-396 UNICEF SCHEME Government Intermediate trained Untrained graduate Primary School Science teacher. 296-423 296-423 680-965 It has been asserted that the aforementioned orders are in consonance with the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee as would appear from pages 241 and 242 of the report of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee wherein the following scales of pay of the respective teachers according to their qualifications were fixed as follows :- Present Revised Matcie Untrained Rs. 205/- fixed 535-765 Matric Trained Rs. 230-340 580 860 Intermediate Untrained Rs. 230 fixed 680 965 Intermediate trained Rs. 296-423 730-1080 Graduate Untrained Rs. 296 fixed 785-1210 Graduate trained Rs. 387-600 850-1260 15. It has further been asserted in the counter affidavit that the aforementioned orders of the Finance Department are dated 30.12.1981 as contained in Annexure-4 to C.W.J.C. No. 1235 of 1982 and Annexure-1 to C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982. 16. My attention has also been drawn to paragraph-16 of the said resolution wherefrom it appears that the concerned Departments of Government were requested to bring to the notice of the Finance Department any ommission or mistake or anomaly found in the details given in Schedule-II for necessary rectification thereof and/or for other suitable action. It has therefore, been contended on behalf of the respondents that there being a scale of pay fixed for intermediate untrained hands before the report of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee the pay of the petitioners had to be fixed in that scale which now stands in between the scales fixed for Intermediate trained teachers and Matric trained teachers. It has therefore, been contended on behalf of the respondents that there being a scale of pay fixed for intermediate untrained hands before the report of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee the pay of the petitioners had to be fixed in that scale which now stands in between the scales fixed for Intermediate trained teachers and Matric trained teachers. It has further been contended that the petitioners are also not entitled to get the scale of pay applicable to the other' qualified teachers on the basis of the doctrine of 'Equal pay for Equal Work' as the entire recommendations of the pay Revision Committee refer to the posts and not to the persons having a requisite qualifications. Reference in this connection has been made to paragraph 6. 104 of the Report at page 84 as also paragraph 1,04-1 of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee's report published in 1985, which reads as follows :- “pay-scale is fixed according to the qualification prescribed for, the post Candidates applying for any post must have the minimum qualification prescribed for that post; but if they have a higher qualifications, they cannot expect a higher pay scale Representation of this type do not amount either to an anomaly or a genuine grievance." 17. My attention has further been drawn to paragraph -16-01-2 at page 116 of the aforementioned report of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee which reads as follows :- "pay scales are fixed, according to the prescribed minimum qualification required for the post and the nature of duties involved. Higher personal qualification other than the prescribed qualification, can not be taken as a factor for determining the pay scale." 18. In the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R) apart from reiterating the aforementioned facts it has further been contended that the petitioner no. 4 of that case can not have any grievance who is a Sanskrit teacher and, therefore he is not similarly situated to that of the rest of the petitioners. 19. It may be pointed out that Shri P.K. Prasad learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R), when questioned conceded the aforementioned fact and submitted that while deciding this case, the Case of the petitioner no. 4 need not be considered at all in this Judgment. 20. Mr. 19. It may be pointed out that Shri P.K. Prasad learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R), when questioned conceded the aforementioned fact and submitted that while deciding this case, the Case of the petitioner no. 4 need not be considered at all in this Judgment. 20. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1235 of 1982 (R) submitted that the resolution dated 30th December, 1981 i.e. Annexure-4 to C.W.J.C. No. 1235 of 1982 and Annexure-1 to C.W.J.C. 1208 of 1982 (R) are in terms of the resolution adopted by the State of Bihar which has been sought to be done by reason of the impugned order as contained in letter dated 2.6.1982 and the order dated 4.9 1982 as contained in Annexures-11 and 12 to C.W.J.C. No. 1235 of 1982 and Annexures-6 and 7 to C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R), respectively. The learned counsel submits that an order of the State of Bihar which was accepted in terms of a resolution of the council of Ministers can only be varied modified or altered in terms of any other resolution passed by the council of Ministers and not by way of an executive order issued by the Officers of Education Department from time to time. It has further been contended that even in the extracts of the government resolution no. 10770 dated 30.12.1981 the Graduate untrained teachers who have been getting a fixed salary of Rs. 296/- have been placed in the scale of pay of Rs. 785-1210 and so far as Intermediate trained teachers are concerned who have been given fixed scale of pay of Rs. 230/- have been put in the scale of pay of Rs. 680-965/-. It was therefore, submitted that the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners who are untrained science graduate or untrained Intermediate in science have been given a scale of pay which is in between Matric trained teachers and Graduate trained teachers is not correct. 230/- have been put in the scale of pay of Rs. 680-965/-. It was therefore, submitted that the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners who are untrained science graduate or untrained Intermediate in science have been given a scale of pay which is in between Matric trained teachers and Graduate trained teachers is not correct. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that even in terms of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee, as refloated in Annexure-C appended to the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. 1235 of 1982 (R) it would be evident that all the teachers should get their salaries in accordance with the scale of pay fixed therefor and on that basis the scale of pay of untrained teachers have also to be fixed. 21. The learned counsels further contended that from various orders issued by the Education Department from time to time as also from the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee it would appeal that so far as teachers are concerned the scale of pay has been linked with possession of qualifications and as such they are entitled to the scales of pay its recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee in terms of the respective qualifications possesse4 by them. The learned counsels have in this connection, placed strong reliance upon the decisions of: 1. 1978 B.B.C.J. 581 2. 1987 P.L.J.R. 464 3. AIR 1917 S.C. 1621 4. 1985 S.L.R. Vol. II 189 22. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the 'State of Bihar on the other hand contended that the orders impugned in these writ applications have also been passed by the State of Bihar. The said orders, according to the learned counsel, have been passed by the State Government would appear from the letter dated 4.9.1982 (Annexure-12 to C.W.J.C. No. 1235 of 1982) and the same being under the orders of the State of Bihar, it would not be correct to say that the resolution dated 30th December, 1982 adopted by the State of Bihar as contained in Annexure-4 can not be varied by any authority other than the State of Bihar itself. The learned counsels for the State, further submitted that even in terms of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee, the State of Bihar was entitled to remove the anomaly and by reason of the impugned orders merely anomalies have been removed and nothing further has been done. 23. The learned counsel for the respondents, further contended that although the scale of pay has been fixed-in terms of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee, the fitment of the, petitioners are to be done by the Executive orders. Reference in this connection has been made on a recent Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1987 P.L.J.R. 738. 24. In view of the contention raised, here in before, by the learned counsels for the parties and the submissions made on their behalf as referred to hereinbefore in my opinion, the following questions fall for determination in this case : (i) Whether the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-11 and 12 to C.W.J.C. No. 1235 of 1982(R) and 6 and 7 to C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R) can be said to be against the resolution adopted by the State of Bihar as contained in Annexures-4 and 5 to C.W.J.C. 1235 of 1982 (R) and 1 and 2 to C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1982 (R). ?. 25. For the purpose of decision on the aforementioned point it is necessary to take into consideration the resolution bearing No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981, whereby and whereunder the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar issued the scales of all the Government employees. From a perusal of the above mentioned circular it would appear that the State Government accepted the revised scale of pay indicated in the first schedule appended thereto and as recommended by the 4th Pay Revision Committee subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The relevant clauses of the aforementioned resolution are as follows:- 10. "The general recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee in respect of Selection Grade are as follows:- (i) Selection Grade should be provided in all services cadres and posts. (ii) There should be normally two levels of Section Grade for all cadres and posts to be known as the Junior Selection Grade and the Senior Selection Grades and a super time scale existing at present. (ii) There should be normally two levels of Section Grade for all cadres and posts to be known as the Junior Selection Grade and the Senior Selection Grades and a super time scale existing at present. (iii) The junior Selection Grade should consist of 20 percent of the total cadre and the Senior Selection Grade, 10 percent of the total cadre. The actual number should be determined for particular cadres taking into account the normal promotion prospects already existing for the cadre so that the first and second levels of promotion inclusive of the selection Grade remains at least 20 percent and 10 percent respectively. In case of the State services, however, the percentage of Junior and senior selection grade should be 20 percent and 12.5. percent. (iv) Promotions to the Selection Grade should of course be subject to the condition that the employee is found otherwise fit for the same. 26. The above recommendations have been accepted by Government subject to the condition that the qualifying service for promotion to any junior Selection Grade shall be five years unless different criteria are already in existence for any specific selection grade. The concerned Administrative Department will have to issue specific orders in consultation with the Department of Finance regarding the Selection Grade scales and percentages for each service/cadre. The Selection Grade posts will not be in addition to the existing sanctioned strength in the cadre but will be created by conversion of the existing sanctioned posts in the cadre. The number of Selection Grade posts will be worked out on the basis of the number of posts sanctioned in the cadre as on 1st April, 1981 whether on permanent or on temporary basis. The Selection Grade posts to be sanctioned by conversion of the existing permanent/temporary posts in the cadre will be either on permanent or on temporary basis according to as the posts in respect of which Selection Grade posts are provided are permanent or temporary. The actual number of Selection Grade posts available in a cadre will be revised actually on the basis of the sanctioned strength of the cadre as on 1st, April, every year, the first such review being due on 1st April, 1982 until such time the Administrative Departments are able to create different levels of Selection Grade posts in accordance with the above derision Government have decided that the existing Selection Grade will continue. Where the revised scale for any existing Selection Grade has not been indicated in Schedule, II, the revised scale for that existing selection grade will be the revised scale next above the corresponding basic revised scale, where, however, two Selection Grades exist at present and the revised scales for the existing Junior/Senior Selection Grades have not been indicated in Schedule, II, the revised scale for the existing Junior Selection Grade will be the revised scale next above the corresponding basis revised scale while in revised scale for the existing Senior Selection Grade will be revised scale next above the revised scale for the junior selection Grade." The other relevant clauses of the concerned circular are as follows:- 16 "The Departments of Government are requested to bring to the notice of Finance Department any ommission or mistake or anomalies found in the details given in Schedule II for rectification and/or other suitable action. 17. Existing orders regarding educational benefits will continue to be operative. 28 There may be cases where it has not been possible to fix suitable scales of pay for posts on fixed consolidated rates of pay or time scale of pay. The departments are advised to examine each such case on the basis of prescribed qualifications, or duties, the corresponding revised scale and other relevant factors and to refer each such case to Finance Department for advise. The existing holder of the posts will continue to draw pay allowance and interim relief at the existing rates untill such time that a final decision is taken." 27. The aforementioned circular letter has been referred to in another resolution of the State of Bihar being Notification no. 2440 dated 18.12.1984. By reason of the aforesaid Notification dated 18.12.1984, it would be evident that different scales of pay have been fixed having regard to the post held by a particular teacher and the minimum qualification required therein. The aforementioned Notification has force of law and, therefore, the petitioners are bound thereby. 28. From a perusal of the aforementioned clause of Resolution dated 30th December, 1981 as referred to herein before as also the Government Resolution No. 2440 dated 18.12.84 it would appear that salaries in a particular class is generally divided into three grades as Grade, I, II and grade III which are divided into several sub grades. 28. From a perusal of the aforementioned clause of Resolution dated 30th December, 1981 as referred to herein before as also the Government Resolution No. 2440 dated 18.12.84 it would appear that salaries in a particular class is generally divided into three grades as Grade, I, II and grade III which are divided into several sub grades. However, from a perusal of the aforementioned resolution read with the recommendation of Pay anomalies Committee's report as referred to in paragraph 13 and 14 herein before, it would be evident that the pay scales are fixed according to the prescribed minimum qualification and the same has got nothing to do with the possession of the qualification by the individual employee. There can not be any doubt whatsoever that the teachers being the government servant, the State of Bihar had adopted the same policy in the case of teachers as in the case of other government servants and in this view of the matter the scales of pay of teachers have also to be fixed in accordance with the posts, held by them subject to the minimum qualification prescribed therefor. It, therefore, logically follows that only because a person has acquired a higher qualification, he would not be entitled to the scale of pay admissible therefor from the date of his acquisition of such qualification. It is further clear that giving a higher scale of pay to the teachers after they acquired higher qualification amounts to a promotion and is dependent upon the number of vacancies existing in that regard. However, it appears that in some cases teachers have been placed in a particular scales of pay on and from the date when they acquired such qualification. Apart from citing certain examples as mentioned in the writ application as also the application for amendment of the writ application, statutory rule or practice followed by the State of Bihar has been brought to my notice by the petitioners for the purpose of showing that scales of pay was being fixed on the basis of qualification acquired by the teachers and such scales of pay had been granted to such teachers from the date they had acquired such qualification. As a matter of fact from a perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it would appear that in the case of the petitioner at the time of their appointment, they being untrained teachers, they were given a fixed scale of pay, which was one scale below the scale of pay fixed in respect of I. Sc. trained teachers. 29. From the various circulars, report of the 4th Pay Revision Committee and the report of the pay anomalies removal committee, it is evident that the State of Bihar has been following a consistent policy that possession of the qualification by an individual employee has got nothing to do with the scales of pay in respect thereof, but the scale of pay has been fixed according to the minimum qualification required for the purpose of post and nature of duty involved. The aforementioned view is buttressed by that very fact that even in respect of the Selection Grade scales of pay, the same is treated to be a promotion. It, therefore, logically follows that whenever a teacher is to be placed on higher scales of pay on the basis of higher qualification acquired by him, the same has all along been considered to be a case of promotion which, in turn, depends upon the number of existing vacancies and sanctioned strength in a particular scales of pay. 30. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court in Chaman Lal and others v. State of Haryana (A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1621) as of the Bombay High Court reported in 1981 (2) S.L.A. 189 can not be said to have any application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 31. There can not be any doubt that the resolution of the State of Bihar adopted by the council of ministers of State of Bihar can be varied or modified only when another resolution is adopted by the same authority or by any other competent authority, but in the instant case the resolution of the State of Bihar dated 30th December, 1981 whereby and whereunder the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee was accepted, was itself subject to certain conditions, the important conditions being condition no. 16 and 28 which have been quoted hereinbefore. 32. 16 and 28 which have been quoted hereinbefore. 32. From the aforementioned fact, it would appear that by the said resolution itself, the State of Bihar authorised the Finance Department to consider the reports with regard to the anomalies relating to fitment of scale of pay or any ommission or mistake occurring therein so that the same may be rectified and/or other suitable action may be taken thereupon. Therefor it is evident that the State of Bihar itself had authorised the Finance Department to deal with all such matters and to take suitable action in that regard. It is, therefore, clear that by reason of the aforementioned resolution, the State of Bihar had delegated its power to the Finance Department to remove anomalies and/or rectify any ommissions or mistake which might have committed in respect thereof. In any event a perusal of Annexure 'B' to the counter affidavit it would appear that the same was in terms of the order passed by the Finance Department, From Annexure 'C' to the counter affidavit, which is a part of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee, it would appear that the Committee recommended that even untrained employees should be given particular scales of pay and should not be given any fixed salary. In the counter affidavit, it has clearly been stated that the petitioners in each writ applications were paid a higher salary by mistake from January, 1982, but the State of Bihar by the impugned orders merely rectified such mistake which it was entitled to do even under the aforementioned resolution dated 30th December, 1981. 33. In the said counter affidavit, it has further categorically been stated that the petitioners are entitled to be promoted in the next higher grade in terms of Clause II of the recommendation as referred to hereinbefore. As further mentioned herein before, it is evident that scales of pay are fixed in relation to a particular post and have no nexus with the qualification held by the teachers concerned. 34. I, therefore find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore reject the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 35. 34. I, therefore find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore reject the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 35. It is, therefore, held that the petitioners were not entitled to the scale of pay as claimed by on the basis of their educational qualification. It is further held that although the State of Bihar has generally accepted the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee, the same being subject to certain conditions as mentioned hereinbefore the actual fitment of a person in a particular scales of pay after removing anomaly in relation to the position held by him was within the domain of the Finance Department. 36. In this view of the matter, there does not appear to be any illegality in the impugned orders. 37. In the result both these writ applications are hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.