Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. These two writ applications were heard together in view of the order dated 23.1.1991 passed in CWJC No. 545/90 (R). However, it appears that the points involved in both the writ applications are not exactly the same, and as such the fact of the matter in both the cases, are being dealt with separately. 2. In CWJC No. 545 of 1990 (R). the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of their salaries from 9th January, 1988 and in the alternative, it has been prayed that it be declared that if such teachers who are not provided for training by the Education Department would be entitled to hold the post in the untrained scale. 3. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 14.4.1984 in Hallet Primary School, Chaibassa, which is a linguistic minority school (Annexure-1) and the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Oriya Prathmik Vidyalaya, Chaibassa, which is also a linguistic minority school (Annexure-4). 4. According to the petitioners, the District Superintendent of Education, Chaibassa confirmed the appointment of petitioner No. 1 as Science teacher in the untrained scale, subject to the condition that he may get himself trained within a period of three years. According to the petitioner No. 1, he made various applications before the authorities of the Training Schools for obtaining his training but he had not been admitted in any of the said Schools. 5. The service of the petitioner No. 2 was also confirmed by the District Superintendent of Education by an order dated 6.2.1984, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application on the similar condition. 6. In CWJC No. 546 of 1990 (R), the petitioner No. 1 has contended that in Mar-wari Hindi Vidyalaya situated at Amratola Chaibassa, there were only eight teachers including the petitioners thereof and they were appointed in the matric trained post by the Managing Committee of the said School. 7. By a letter dated 2.6.1983, as contained in Annexure-1 to CWJC No. 546 of 1990 (R), the appointments of the petitioners alongwith one Gopal Sahu were approved, subject to the conditions that they would get themselves trained within a period of three years. 8. 7. By a letter dated 2.6.1983, as contained in Annexure-1 to CWJC No. 546 of 1990 (R), the appointments of the petitioners alongwith one Gopal Sahu were approved, subject to the conditions that they would get themselves trained within a period of three years. 8. The petitioners have contended that the petitioner No. lis a B.A. and was appointed against the female reserved quota and similarly the petitioner No. 2 is a B.Com. and was appointed against the reserved haryan quota. It has been asserted that it is the duty of the Education Department to provide training to the teachers but no such attempt had been made by the Education Department. It was further contended that in any event they being holders of Bachelor Degrees, could not have been sent for training in Primary education and that they could be directed to obtain B.Ed, degree only. 9. The petitioners of both the writ applications have contended that however, by reason of a general circular dated 21.1.1988, the services of all such persons who could not obtain the diploma in training were extended upto 31.12.1988, subject to the condition that if within the aforementioned period, they do not undergo the courses of the training, they would be paid the scale of pay admissible to a trained teacher after six months from the date of acquisition of such diploma in training. In the said letter, however, it was also stipulated that the future salary would be paid only upon production of the certificate of permanent residents of the district granted by a competent authority by the petitioners. (An-nexure-6 to CWJC No. 545/90 (R)) . 10. The petitioners have further contended that by a letter dated 20th February, 1989, as contained in Annexure-7 to the CWJC No. 545/90 (R), the District Superintendent of Education recommended the payment of salary of untrained teachers including the petitioners on the ground that they had been appointed against a reserved quota by the Managaing Committee of minority institution and they had been working for a period of more than three years and in reply to the said letter dated 31st March, 1989 sought for caste certificate issued by the competent authority with regard to the said teachers (Annexure-8). 11. The requisite caste certificates were sent by the District Superintendent of Education to the Deputy Director of Primary Education (Annexure-9). 11. The requisite caste certificates were sent by the District Superintendent of Education to the Deputy Director of Primary Education (Annexure-9). By a letter dated 16th August, 1989 (Annexure-10), the Deputy Director Primary Education, Human Resources Department however purported to have held that the con firmation of the appointment of the said nine teachers was made against the provisions of law as contained in notification dated 31.12.1982 issued by the State of Bihar and the Government letter No. 2501 dated 6.12.1985. A querry was also made by the said authority from the District Superintendent of Education. Chaibassa as to whether prior concurrence of the said appointment had been taken by him prior to making such appointment. It was further mentioned therein that the District Superintendent of Education alongwith his letter dated 11.4.1989 (An-nexure-9) did not send the caste certificates of the petitioners which could be granted only by the District Welfare Officer. 12. In reply to the aforesaid letter, the respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 2.12.1989 it sated that in terms of the notification dated 31.12.1982, the Managing Committee of the Government Government/aided minority Schools would be the Competent authority to make appointment of the teachers and by a departmental circular it was directed that if Scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, science, urdu and female trained teachers were not available, then untrained teachers should be appointed against the aforementioned resewed quota and all the said nine teachers including the petitioners had been appointed in terms of the said provisions. It was further stated that factum relating to their appointments was made known to the department on various dates. 13. It was further stated that as all the nine teachers were appointed prior to the issuance of Government letter dated 31.12.1982 and 6.12.1985 the same is not applicable to the case of the aforementioned teachers (An-nexure-11). 14. In CWJC No. 545 of 1990 (R), no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. However, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 in CWJC No. 546 of 1990 (R). In the said counter affidavit, it has been contended that vacancies in the Government aided schools are required to be filled up from the panel prepared by the District Superintendent of Education upon observing the relevant rules and procedures relating to appointment of teachers. In the said counter affidavit, it has been contended that vacancies in the Government aided schools are required to be filled up from the panel prepared by the District Superintendent of Education upon observing the relevant rules and procedures relating to appointment of teachers. It has further been contended that the petitioners of the said application were appointed by the Managing Committee. It was stated that as prayed for by the Secretary of the Managing Committee that the appointment of, the petitioner be approved as no trained teacher was available, a temporary approval in respect of the appointment of the writ petitioners was granted subject to the condition that they should obtain the training certificate themselves within a period of three years from the date of their joining. It has been contended that the petitioners did not make any effort to obtain training certificate despite the fact that on 9.9.1985 they were deputed fro taking training in the training school, namely, Chainpur Primary Teachers Training School, but the petitioners did not avail the said opportunity. 15. It has further been stated that the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna, terminated the services of the petitioners in the light of notification dated 31.12.1982. Allegedly, the aforementioned intimation of termination of services of the petitioners had been communicated to the Secretary of the School. It has further been contended that the copy of the termination letter is not with-respondent No. 3. 16. A rejoinder to the said counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. In the said rejoinder, it has been stated that they had received payment of salary up to 8th January, 1988. It has been contended that the petitioners had been appointed out of the panel prepared by respondent No 3. It has further been contended that by a circular dated 15th December, 1976 purported to have been issued under Section 8 of the Bihar Non/Government Primary Schools (Taking Over of Control & Management) Ordinance (Annexure-9) it has been directed that in the event of non- availability of trained teachers, in special circumstances in the reserved category untrained teachers can be appointed if they have otherwise the requisite qualifications. It has further been stated that such teachers whose qualification is matric or above, they would be granted the salary in the scale of matric untrained teachers as their basic pay. 17. It has further been stated that such teachers whose qualification is matric or above, they would be granted the salary in the scale of matric untrained teachers as their basic pay. 17. It has been submitted that the petitioners were appointed against the reserved post of female category and Motor Vehicles harijan and as such their appointment cannot be said to be either illegal or irregular. The petitioners further stated that as they were graduates they should be sent for B. Ed. training centers for obtaining training for which they had filed their representations which are contained in Annexures 13 and 13/1 thereto. It has further been contended that by a letter dated 25.7.1986 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, the petitioners were directed to go for training without any salary, but they have submitted their explanation to the Department and, thereafter, no intimation whatsoever has been received from any authority. 18. In CWJC No. 545 of 1990 (R), the petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit on 17.2.1992 wherein it has been contended that the petitioner No. 1 is a B. Sc. and Was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Science and, thus, they have been appointed against the reserved quota. Their appointment is neither illegal nor irregular. It has further been contended that in terms of Government circular, dated 2.6.1988 (An-nexure-14) that matric trained post is not in the grade of science teacher, the petitioner in the said supplementary affidavit have further annexed a copy of the circular dated 20th October, 1981 (Annexure-15) wherein it has been held that the matric trained and intermediate qualified teachers who have five years experience in teaching may be given short course training. It has further been stated in the said circular that one year short course trained matric teachers upon obtaining qualification of intermediate or graduate would be entitled to get the pay of I.A. and B.A. trained teachers respectively. 19. The petitioners have further brought to the notice of the Court a circular letter dated 31.3.1983 (Annexure-16) to show revised scale of pay of untrained matric, intermediate and graduate teachers. It has further been stated that petitioner No. 1 filed representation before the Director of Primary Education stating therein that he hau made several attempts to obtain admission in the Teachers Training School but he was not sent for training. It has further been stated that petitioner No. 1 filed representation before the Director of Primary Education stating therein that he hau made several attempts to obtain admission in the Teachers Training School but he was not sent for training. He has further submitted that he at his own level tried in various colleges for admission but owing to shortages of seats he could not obtain admission in any of the schools. It has further been submitted that as he had worked 4-1/2 years and crossed the age of 35 years, he was not entitled to any further employment. 20. It has further been stated that the said petitioner received teachers training course conducted by the Examination Board from Sister Nivedita College, Calcutta and obtained a certificate which is contained in Annexure-18 thereto. Petitioner No. 2 has also stated that he had already appeared in the examination from the Primary Teachers Training College, Chaibassa, but his result has not been published. 21. Mr. P.K. Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the circular letters as indicated hereinbefore and particularly the circular letter dated 15.12.1976 as contained in Annexure-13 to the supplementary affidavit filed in CWJC 545/90 (R), from which it is evident that even untrained teachers can be appointed. Learned counsel has further submitted that in that view of the matter, thecontention of the respondents to the effect that the petitioners being untrained teachers, they have no legal right to continue in the service is not tenable. 22. On the other hand, Mrs. M.M. Pal learned Standing Counsel No. 1 and Mr. M.Y. Eqbal learned Government Pleader No. 1 submitted that the State does not have any duty to send the teachers for obtaining training as they are themselves required to obtain training certificate in view of their conditional appointment. It was further submitted that as the petitioners CWJC No. 546 of 1990 (R) refused to go for obtaining training they cannot make any complaint if their services have already been terminated. 23. It is no doubt true that the appointments of the petitioners were made by the Managing Committee of the School. However, the said appointments were approved by a competent authority of the State of Bihar subject, of course, to their obtaining training within a period of three years. 23. It is no doubt true that the appointments of the petitioners were made by the Managing Committee of the School. However, the said appointments were approved by a competent authority of the State of Bihar subject, of course, to their obtaining training within a period of three years. However, the said period has been extended by a circular letter dated 21.1.1988 subject to the condition that if within the period aforementioned they do not undergo the course of training they would be granted the scale of pay admissible to an untrained teacher only after six months from the date of acquisition of such diploma training. 24. From the circular letter dated 15th December, 1976 it is evident that in special circumstances untrained teachers can also be appointed against the reserved quota. It is true that in relation to non-Government Institutions, the State has laid down a criteria by notification dated 31.12.1982 that the minimum qualification of the teachers appointed after 1st January, 1971 would be matric trained. The said notification was purported to have been issued by the under Section 8 of the Bihar-Non-Government Elementary School (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976, However, such a restriction must be read with other circulars issued by the State of Bihar from time to time wherein it has clearly been contended that appointment of teachers in the reserved category may be made from amongst untrained teachers if trained teachers are not available. 25. It appears from the Annexure-9 to CWJC 545/90 (R) that nine teachers were appointed against the reserved quota, that in scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward class in a minority institution and/or science and women teachers. 26. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered in Ashok Kumar Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 152 , wherein the Supreme Court upon consideration of the executive directions/regulations held as follows : "We have gone through the executive directions/regulations issued in the form of office letters/orders etc. concerning the working of the Bihar Non- Government Primary School (Taking over of Control) Ordinance, 1976 and, in particular, the directions relating to the preparation of waiting list and appointment of teachers (para 1) and the qualifications of candidate for appointment and waiting list (para 2). The directions inter alia, provide that while appointing the teachers I.Sc. concerning the working of the Bihar Non- Government Primary School (Taking over of Control) Ordinance, 1976 and, in particular, the directions relating to the preparation of waiting list and appointment of teachers (para 1) and the qualifications of candidate for appointment and waiting list (para 2). The directions inter alia, provide that while appointing the teachers I.Sc. trained will be appointed on the basis of matric trained. Where candidates of the aforesaid qualifications are not available in required number, the candidates having qualifications more than those stated above may also be appointed. The names of the candidates, in each category, will be written yearwise in the following manner : "..first of all matric trained, then I.A., I.Sc. trained and thereafter graduate trained, on the basis of marks obtained in educational and training courses, and their appointments will be made accordingly." Sub-clause (d) of para 2, however provides : "After the names of trained candidates the names of untrained candidates, of each category will be written in sequence of marks obtained and qualification." Sub-clause (f) of para 2 reads thus : "untrained candidates of different educational qualification may be appointed in reserved category under special circumstances when trained candidates are not available." Sub-clause (I) of para 2 reads as follows : "Untrained candidates having the qualifications of matric or more than it may be appointed in the preliminary pay scale Matric Untrained (Middle Trained)." 8. A conjoint reading of the executive orders/directions shows that the untrained candidates are also capable of being appointed in each category but only when the trained teachers are not available in the particular category. The trained teachers in the order of sequence would indeed get preference over the untrained teachers." 27. From the facts as stated hereinbefore, it also appears that petitioners of both the writ applications were appointed against the vacancy in reserved quota. It further appears that at the relevant time, trained teachers were not available. Further as noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner No. 1 in CWJC No. 545 of 1990 (R) has already obtained training and petitioner No. 2 thereof has also appeared in the examination although his result has not yet been published. The Director Primary Education may also take into consideration the fact that petitioners of CWJC No.546 of 1990 (R) intended to be sent for obtaining a diploma of B.Ed. The Director Primary Education may also take into consideration the fact that petitioners of CWJC No.546 of 1990 (R) intended to be sent for obtaining a diploma of B.Ed. and they are also ready and willing to go for a short course training in terms of circular letter dated 20th October, 1981 as contained in Annexure-15 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit. 28. In CWJC No. 545 of 1990 (R), no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. However, as indicated hereinbefore, in CWJC No.546 of 1990 (R), a counter affidavit has been filed alleging inter alia, therein that the services of all the nine teachers whose games find place in Annexure-7 to CWJC No. 545 of 1990 (R) were made against the reserved category. 29. The respondents in their counter affidavit did not give any detail as to when the services of the petitioners were terminated. It is not the case of the respondents that the orders of termination of the petitioners had been sent to the headmaster of the school, but nothing has been pointed out to show that the headmaster of the school has served the same upon the petitioners. The petitioners have categorically denied the receipt of any such termination order. 30. In this situation, we have no option but to direct the Director of Primary Education to consider the individual cases of the petitioners in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Singhs case (supra) as also in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. It may also be pointed out that the Supreme Court has recently in H.C. Puttaswamy and others v. The Hon ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 295 : 1991 (2) PLJR 77 (SC), observed as follows : There is good sense in the plea put forward for the appellants. The human problem stands at the outset in these cases and it is that problem that motivated us in allowing the review petitions. It may be recalled that the appellants are in service for the past 10 years. They are either graduates or double graduates or post graduates as against the minimum qualification of SSc required for Second Division Clerks in which cadre they were originally recruited. Some of them seem to have earned higher qualification by hand work during that service. It may be recalled that the appellants are in service for the past 10 years. They are either graduates or double graduates or post graduates as against the minimum qualification of SSc required for Second Division Clerks in which cadre they were originally recruited. Some of them seem to have earned higher qualification by hand work during that service. Some of them in the normal course have been promoted to higher cadre. They are now over aged for entry into any of the service. It seems that most of them cannot get the benefit of age relaxation under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. One could only imagine their untold miseries and of their family if they are left at the midstream. Indeed, it would be an Act of cruelty at this stage to ask them to appear for written test and viva voce to be conducted by the Public Service Commission for fresh selection See Lila Dharv. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 1 SCR 320 at 326. 14. We may briefly touch some of the decision referred to us by counsel for the appellants. A.K. Yadav v.State of Haryana, (1985)4 SCC 417 was concerned with the selection made by the Haryana Public Service Commission for appointment to the cadre of the Haryana Civil Service by allocating 33.3 per cent for viva voce. The selection was challenged before this Court on the ground that the marks awarded for the interview was high as it would open door for arbitrariness. This Court upheld that contention and held that the marks for viva voce test should not exceed 12.2 per cent. However, the Court did not set aside the appointments, instead, directed the Pubilc Service Commission to give one more opportunity to the aggrieved candidates to appear at the competitve examinations. In State of U.P. v.Refiquddin (1988) 1 SCR 794 the validity of selection made by the Public Service Commission of Uttar Pradesh to the cadre of Munsifs came for consideration. Here again the Court refused to quash the appointment even-though the selection was found to be contrary to the Rules of recruitment. In Miss Shainda Hasan v.State of U.P. (1990) 2 Service LJ 93, the legality of appointment of a Principal of a minority college was in question. The Principal was overaged for appointment, but she was given ages relaxation which was held to be arbitrary. In Miss Shainda Hasan v.State of U.P. (1990) 2 Service LJ 93, the legality of appointment of a Principal of a minority college was in question. The Principal was overaged for appointment, but she was given ages relaxation which was held to be arbitrary. Yet the Court has declined to strike down her appointment. On the contrary, the Chancellor was directed to grant the necessary approval for her appointment with effect from the date she was holding tne post of the Principal. Her continuous working as Principal in the College seems to be the only consideration that weighed with this Court for giving that relief." 31. If the assertion of the petitioners is correct to the effect that they have been working for a long time in correct the respondent No. 2 should consider the desirability of disposing of the repreentations of the petitioners at an early date and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 31. These will applications are accor-dinaly disposed, but, in the facts and circumstances of these cases, there will be no order as to costs.