JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - Is the "condensed in-service training" mentioned in the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 equivalent to "correspondence-cum-contact course" referred to in Regulation 6 (b) of Chapter XD of the Board's Regulations ? This is the precise question that falls for consideration in this review application filed by the State of Orissa and its officials against the judgment dated 27-4-1992 of this Court in OJC No. 900 of 1992 in which it was held that the opp. party Bairagi Charan Lenka shall be treated to have acquired the training envisaged under the aforesaid sub-rule(2) of Rule 16 in view of his training in correspondence-cum-contact course. 2. A resume of facts leading to the filing of this review application is necessary to be noted The opp. party filed the aforesaid OJC No. 900 of 1992 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that he is entitled to get trained matric scale of pay with effect from 1-1-1982. His case was that he was a matriculate and on being selected by the management of Nigamananda M.E. School joined as an Assistant Teacher in the said school in the year 1983. He had been drawing untrained matric scale of pay. In the year 1981, after completion of 17 years of service, he was selected for the "correspondence-cum-contact course". He joined the course on 17-12-1981 and on completion of the course was relieved on 31-12-1981. Thereafter, he through the Ail Orissa Lower Secondary Teachers Association demanded trained scale of pay but the Government did not take any action. A teacher called Gourahari Jena filed writ application (OJC No. 8 of 1984) seeking direction for sanction of trained scale of pay in his favour. Thereafter, he through the Ail Orissa Lower Secondary Teachers Association demanded trained scale of pay but the Government did not take any action. A teacher called Gourahari Jena filed writ application (OJC No. 8 of 1984) seeking direction for sanction of trained scale of pay in his favour. This Court by judgment dated 4-5-1987 disposed of the said writ application, The Court accepted the stand of the State Government that the wrint petitioner had not undergone the condensed in-service training mentioned in the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the Orissa education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1974 Rules') It further observed that since an obligation had been undertaken by the governmental authorities for providing opportunity to the teachers having ten years of experience for receiving the condensed in-service training to be eligible to be confirmed and entitled to draw the trained salary, by not providing any opportunity to such teachers, amounted to deprivation of the benefits which the 1974 Rules intended to confer upon them. The Court further observed that if the training which the writ petitioner had already undertaken was different, then another training which is meant by the rule-making authority as per the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 should be imparted to all such teachers without unreasonable delay so that they might not suffer any loss. Time till December, 1987 was granted by the Court for imparting such training to the teachers. It was the allegation of the opp. party in the writ application (out of which the present review arises) that despite the aforesaid direction of the Court in the earlier case OJC No. 8 of 1984 he was not imparted with any such training and the concerned authorities having failed to do so, he cannot be denied the trained scale of pay in view of the fact that he himself completed the correspondence-cum-contact course. Despite service of notice, the petitioners who were opp. parties in the case did not file counter-affidavit. In the circumstances, the Court by judgment dated 27-4-1992 disposed of the writ application declaring as follows : "From the conduct of the parties, it is apparent that the opp. Despite service of notice, the petitioners who were opp. parties in the case did not file counter-affidavit. In the circumstances, the Court by judgment dated 27-4-1992 disposed of the writ application declaring as follows : "From the conduct of the parties, it is apparent that the opp. parties are not in a position to substantiate their earlier stand that there is another condensed training course which is available for the petitioner to undergo. Even if such training is available, the opp. parties have not taken any steps to get the petitioner trained in it. In that view of the matter, we direct that the petitioner be treated in view of his training in the contact-cum-correspondence course to have already acquired the training as required under Rule 16 (2) and be paid the trained scale with effect from 1-1-1982 and be continued to be paid in such scale of pay..." Being aggieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners preferred SLP (C) No. 11421 of 1994 and 12461 of 1994 before the Supreme Court. Their Lordships by order dated 30-8-1994 disposed of the petitions by observing as follows : "In these appeals, two questions have been raised, to wit, the adequacy of the training and the entitlement to payment of the arrears from 1982. With regard to the first question, we do not find much substance, since the Secretary, who in one of the meetings had discussions with the teachers association and their office bearers and had suggested the taking by them a condensed course in two years in their respective vacations at a period of 16 days each. The condensed course suggested and the correspondence course which the teachers claimed to have taken by correspondence, if are the same, there cannot be much substance in the first contention. But with regard to the second contention, we do not propose to express any opinion on merits, since in these cases the High Court is required to look into the matter and consider the respective contentions of the State as well as the teachers, i.e. when the particular teacher passed the course and from what date he, would be entitled to regular salary. Therefore, it is open to the Government to make necessary applications for review of the judgments and the limitation that has run out during the interrugnum be not taken into account in view of the facts and circumstances in these cases. Review petitions should be filed within sixty days from the date of the receipt of this order.'' Pursuant to the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court, this application for review has been filed at the instance of the State and its officials. 3. Rule 16 (2) of the 1974 Rules reads as follows : "16. Probation and confirmation-- (1) xx xx (2) No teacher who has not undergone the training prescribed for the post shall hold the post substantively : Provided that an untrained teacher having not less than ten years of service shall undergo condensed in-service training provided by the Government and after successful completion of such training shall be eligible for confirmation and shall be entitled to draw salary of a trained teacher : Provided further that a teacher attaining the age of 48 years shall be exempted from undergoing the training and shall be entitled to financial benefits of a trained teacher." The Board of Secondary Education which is a statutory authority has framed certain regulations for conduct of Theachers Certificate Examination of the Secondary Training School which is commonly known as C.T. examination. Regulation 5 states that the examination shall be open to candidates who have satisfactorily prosecuted a regular course of study for two school years in a Secondary Training School recognised as such by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and have attended the school for not less than 75% of the working days in each year etc. Those candidates are called as "Regular candidates". Regulation 6 enables certain categories of candidates to appear in the said examination privately. 4. We may extract the relevant part of Regulation 6. The following categories of candidates are eligible to appear for the above examination privately. "(a).................................... (b) Teachers........................"or teachers of Primary or Secondary Schools of the State who have completed the Correspondence-cum-Contact Course conducted by the Institutions duly recognised by the Board" (c)............................. (d).............................." From the aforesaid Regulations, it is clear that two types of candidates eligible to appear at the Teachers' Certificate Examination. "(a).................................... (b) Teachers........................"or teachers of Primary or Secondary Schools of the State who have completed the Correspondence-cum-Contact Course conducted by the Institutions duly recognised by the Board" (c)............................. (d).............................." From the aforesaid Regulations, it is clear that two types of candidates eligible to appear at the Teachers' Certificate Examination. One category is "Regular candidates" who prosecute regular course of study for certain period in Secondary Training Schools and satisfy other conditions and the other category is called "Private candidates" who must satisfy the requirements mentioned in Regulation 6 (a), (b), (c) and (d), In the case at hand, we are concerned with Clause (b) of Regulastion 6 which states, inter alia, that teachers of Primary or Secondary Schools of the State who have completed the Correspohdence-cum-Contact Course conducted by the Institutions duly recognised by the Board of Secondary Education are eligible to appear for Teachers Certficate Examination privately. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the 1974 Rules states, inter alia, that no teacher who has not undergone the training prescribed for the post shall hold the post substantively but an untrained teacher having not less than ten years of service shall undergo condensed in-service training provided by the Government and after successful completion of such training shall be eligible for confirmation and shall be entitled to draw salary of trained teacher. There is no dispute at the Bar that in order to be substantively appointed as a teacher and to be entitled to the trained scale of pay, it is necesssary for the opp. party to pass the Teachers' Certificate Examination as provided under the Regulation referred to above. Admittedly, the opp, party has not passed the Teachers' Certificate Examination. Shri Ashok Mohanty, learned counsel for the opp. party submitted that in order to meat such situation, provision has been made in the first proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 that an untrained teacher with ten or more years of service shall undergo condensed in-service training provided by the Government and after successful completion of such training, he will be eligible to draw salary of a trained teacher. Since the State Government has not provided any condensed in-service training to undergo and in view of the fact that the opposite party has undergone the Correspondence-cum-Contact Course, he is entitled to be substantively appointed and draw trained scale of pay. 5. Since the State Government has not provided any condensed in-service training to undergo and in view of the fact that the opposite party has undergone the Correspondence-cum-Contact Course, he is entitled to be substantively appointed and draw trained scale of pay. 5. As already noted, the Correspondence-cum-Contact Course is the subject which finds mention in Clause (b) of Regulation 6. By virtue of the said provision, a teacher of a Primary or Secondary school who has completed the Correspondence-cum-Contact Course is eligible to appear at the Teachers' Certificate Examination privately. It is an admitted case of the parties that the condensed in-service training as envisaged in the first proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the 1974 Rules has not been made available by the State Government to the untrained teachers. About a decade ago this Court in Gourahari Jena v. State of Orissa : (OJC No. 8 of 1984 disposed of on 4-5-1987) called upon the State Government to impart condeased in-service training or any other appropriate training meant by the rule-making authority by the end of December, 1987. The direction has not yet been complied with and the State Government in the appropriate department has blissfully slept over the matter. For such apathy and negligence it is answerable to this Court. It also shows the casual manner in which the State Government has been treating the untrained teachers without providing them appropriate training to enable them to get the benefit conferred by the first proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the 1974 Rules. In the backdrop of the aforesaid, let us now consider the judgment under review. Wile granting relief to the opp. party, the Court has held that in view of his training in the Correspondence-cum-Contact Course, he should be 'treated to have acquired the training as required under Rule 16 (2) of the 1974 Rules. 6. Law is now well-settled that the Court would hesitate to express any opinion on academic matters relating to equivalence of one degree/diploma with another. Whether the "condensed in-service training" is equivalent or can be held to be equivalent to the 'Correspondence-cum-Contact Course' is purely an academic matter and we, as a writ Court, cannot render any definite opinion on the equivalence particularly in absence of any material available on record. Whether the "condensed in-service training" is equivalent or can be held to be equivalent to the 'Correspondence-cum-Contact Course' is purely an academic matter and we, as a writ Court, cannot render any definite opinion on the equivalence particularly in absence of any material available on record. In the judgment under review, this Court treated the 'Correspondence-cum-Contact Course' undertaken by the petitioner to be equivalent to the condensed in-service training' as required under Rule 16 (2)of the 1974 Rules. The Court could not have arrived at such a conclusion. In our considered opinion, the Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. For the reasons mentioned above, we have no hasitation to set aside the judgment under review and we order accordingly. We accordingly dispose of the oforesaid OJC No. 900 of 1992 filed by the opposite party with the following directions : 1. Petitioner No. 1. State Government is called upon to take a conscious decision whether the 'condensed in-service training mentioned In proviso to Sub-rule (2jof Rule 16 of the 1974 Rules is equivalent to the Correspondence-cum-Contact Course referred to in Regulation 6 (b) of Chapter XD of the Bard's Regulations. The State Government will take this decision within three months hence; 2. In case the State Government takes decision in the. Aforesaid matter in the negative, it will provide the condensed in-service training to such of the willing untrained teachers or some other befitting training so as to enable them to enjoy the benefit conferred under proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the 1974 Rules within a period of three months from the date appropriate decision as per direction (1) is taken; 3. The petitioners will report compliance of the directions referred to above immediately after the decisions are taken; and 4. Petitioner No. 1 is called upon to show cause within one month hence as to why appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act shall not be taken against it for having not carried out the direction of this Court in the judgment dated 4-5-1987 in OJC No. 8 of 1984. 7. The review application is accordingly allowed. No costs. R.K. Dash, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed