Judgment Amareshwar Sahay, J.- Heard the parties. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order as contained in Annexure-15 dated 9.12.1996, passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar by which, the representation filed by the Respondent No. 5-Smt. Shyamali Chatterjee has been allowed and she has been declared senior. to the present Writ-Petitioner-Deonarayan Prasad Sinha after holding that the Managing Committee of the School wrongly, by ignoring the rules and regulations, granted the selection grade to Deonarayan Prasad Sinha, which he was not entitled to since he obtained teachers' training on 1.8.1981 and, therefore, he became entitled to those benefits only after he obtained the Teachers' Training i.e. from 1.8.1981 whereas, Smt. Shyamali Chatterjee was already a Trained Graduate at the time of her appointment i.e. on 11.4.1978 and, therefore, she is senior to Deonarayan Prasad Sinha. The Director, by the said order, asked the Managing Committee to fix the seniority of the respondent no. 5 over the petitioner and, thereafter, to give consequential benefits to the respondent no. 5 and further directed that the payment made to the petitioner in excess by virtue of giving wrong pay scale, should be recovered from him. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following facts emerges which are not in dispute. Carmel High School (hereinafter called as the said School), Bokaro Thermal in the District of Bokaro is a recognized Religious Christian Minority School and it was recognized as a religious minority by the State Government on 11.4.1978. Prior to that, permission to establish the said School was granted by the State Government on 25.8.1976 and on 19.5.1977, the School was given recognition w.e.f. 1.1.1977. This Writ Petitioner Deonarayan Prasad Sinha was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 23.6.1975 by the Managing Committee of the School and at that time, he was only a Graduate without any degree of Teacher's Training whereas, the respondent no. 5-Smt. Shyamali Chatterjee was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said School on 17.1.1977 and at the time of her appointment, she was B.Sc., B.Ed., meaning thereby, she was holding the teachers' training degree at the time of her appointment itself. The writ petitioner subsequently in May, 1977, enhanced his educational qualification by obtaining M.A. Degree. 5-Smt. Shyamali Chatterjee was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said School on 17.1.1977 and at the time of her appointment, she was B.Sc., B.Ed., meaning thereby, she was holding the teachers' training degree at the time of her appointment itself. The writ petitioner subsequently in May, 1977, enhanced his educational qualification by obtaining M.A. Degree. On 25.1.1978, the petitioner was sent for teachers' training and the result of the teachers' training was declared on 1.8.1981 in which, the petitioner was declared to have passed the said teachers' training examination. 4. The Managing Committee of the School gave the selection grade to the writ petitioner after he obtained the teachers' training. With effect from 2.1 0.1981, he was given Junior Selection Grade and w.e.f. 2.10.1984, he was given Senior Selection Grade. 5. The respondent no. 5 challenged the order of the Managing Committee granting selection grade to the petitioner by filing a writ petition being C.WJ.C. No. 432 of 1995(R) before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 23.2.1995 contained in Annexure-14, directing her to make a fresh representation before the Director, Secondary Education. The respondent No.5, thereafter, filed representation before the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, who, after considering her representation, passed the order as contained in Annexure-15, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. The claim of the writ petitioner is that in all respect, he is senior to the respondent no. 5. He was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 23.6.1975 against a sanctioned post whereas, the respondent no. 5 was appointed on 17.1.1977. Further, according to the petitioner, the said School was declared Christian Minority School on 11.4.1978 by the State Government and at the time of declaration of minority school, he was getting MA Untrained Scale whereas, the respondent no~ 5 was getting B.Sc. Trained Scale. After he attained the degree of teachers' training, he was given MA Trained Scale. Subsequently, by Resolution dated 21.1.1982, as contained in Annexure-7, the Managing Committee of the School Granted Selection Grade being Senior most amongst the Assistant Teachers of the School. The said School also prepared a seniority list which was sent to the Government for approval, in which his name appeared at Serial No. 2 whereas, name of the Respondent No. 5 appeared at SI. NO.3. The said School also prepared a seniority list which was sent to the Government for approval, in which his name appeared at Serial No. 2 whereas, name of the Respondent No. 5 appeared at SI. NO.3. That seniority list as well as the grant of selection grade to the petitioner from 2.10.1984 was approved by the respondent no. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the order passed by the Director, as contained in Annexure-15, is not legal and valid and, therefore, is liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, the case of the respondent no. 5- Smt. Shyamali Chatterjee is that when the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said School on 23.6.1975, he was simply a graduate without having qualification of teachers' training whereas, at the time of her appointment as Assistant Teacher on 17.1.1977, she was already having educational qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed., and, therefore, she was a trained graduate. Her appointment was made just after the recognition of the school as religious minority school. According to her, at the time of recognition of the school, the name of teaching staff were sent for approval who were in fact working in the School at that time and on the basis of said list, the State Government recognized the School by issue of letter dated 19.5.1977 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit which is quoted hereinbelow. ^^dk;kZy;&fcgkj ek/;fed f”k{kk cksMZ] cq)ekxZ] iVuk&1 Kki la[;k ---------------------@iVuk] fnukad 1977A v/;{k] fcgkj ek/;fed f”k{kk cksMZ] iVuk ds vkns”kkuqlkj vuqefr izkIr dkesZy mPp fo|ky;] cksdkjks FkeZy] iksŒ&cksdkjks FkeZy] ftyk&fxfjMhg dks dyk ,oa foKku fo’k; lewg esa fuEufyf[kr deZpkfj;ksa ds lkFk Nk= fgr esa 1-1-197 ekU;rk iznku dh tkrh gS] fdUrq osrukfn foRrh; ekeys ds fy;s ekU;rk i= fuxZr dh frfFk ls ekuh tk,xhA ØeŒ f”k{kd ,oa ;ksX;rk inuke laŒ deZpkjh dk uke 1 flLVj vlqEerk chŒ,Œ] chŒ,MŒ lgk;d f”kf{kdk 2 flLVj vkbfju chŒ,Œ] izf”kf{kr ** ijsjk 3 Jh ,eŒdksULVsUVhuk chŒ,Œ] chŒ,MŒ ** 4 Jherh tsŒ dsŒ chŒ,Œ] izf”kf{kr ** ekFk: 5 ehl dfork jk; chŒ,Œ] chŒ,MŒ ** 6 eh HkhŒ lhy chŒ,lŒlhŒ] chŒ,MŒ ** 7 ,ykbZek Fkkel chŒ,Œ] chŒ,MŒ ** vU; vko”;d f”k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr cksMZ dh vuq”kalk ij cksMZ }kjk dh tk,A izca/k lfefr dk xBu fu;ekuqlkj iwjk fd;k tk,A Hkfo’; fuf/k dh lqfo/kk lHkh f”k{kd ,oa deZpkjh dks iznku dh tk,A izca/k lfefr ds xBu ds fy, uke funsZf”kr vyx ls fd;k tk jgk gSA---------------------** From perusal of the said document i.e. Annexure-A, it would appear that name of the writ petitioner does not appear as teacher working in the said School and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed against a sanctioned post, is not correct. If he would have been working against the sanctioned post then, his name must would have found in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. She further claims that School in question was given minority status w.e.f. 11.4.1978 and asa consequence thereto, the District Education Officer, Giridih issued letter dated 13.9.1980 (Annexure-3) approving the pay scale of Assistant Teachers working at that time in the said School. From perusal of the said letter (Annexure-3), it would appear that so far the petitioner is concerned, he was not given any regular pay scale but he was simply given a fixed pay of Rs. 387/- per month, whereas, since she was a trained graduate and therefore was given regular pay scale of Rs. 387-600 w.e.f. 17.1.1977. According to her, the letter dated 13.9.1980, Annexure-3 is not a seniority list but it is simply a letter fixing the pay scale. Further, according to the respondent no. 387/- per month, whereas, since she was a trained graduate and therefore was given regular pay scale of Rs. 387-600 w.e.f. 17.1.1977. According to her, the letter dated 13.9.1980, Annexure-3 is not a seniority list but it is simply a letter fixing the pay scale. Further, according to the respondent no. 5, the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in a High School is that a candidate must be a Trained Graduate, as would appear from Annexure-B i.e. Circular of the State Government dated 15.9.1978. No doubt the petitioner was appointed in the said School prior to her appointment but at the time of his appointmen1, he was not possessing the prescribed qualification. He was confirmed on the said post only after he obtained teachers' training i.e. on 1.8.1981, whereas, she was already having teachers' training at the time of her initial appointment on 17.1.1977 and, therefore, she is certainly senior to the petitioner, in view of the rules, orders and circulars of the State Government which envisage criteria for fixing seniority. 8. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the State Government issued a circular on 2.12.1975 being Circular No. 650 envisaging that in a Non-Government High School the date of appointment of a teacher has to be recognized from the date when the permission was granted by the Government to establish the school and as per the said circular the permission to establish the school was granted on 25.8.1976 and therefore, undoubtedly the respondent no. 5, who was appointed on 17.1.1977 cannot rank senior to the petitioner. He further submitted that the Government of Bihar issued another circular on 24.2.1978 which speaks as to the mode of approval of the appointment of an untrained teacher working in a recognized Non-Government High School and if this circular is read together with the circular issued on 2.12.1975 them it would appear that the service of a teacher has to be recognized from the date the State Government granted permission to the School for establishment. 9. Mr. Singh by referring to one another circular dated 29.3.1967 of the Government of Bihar, submitted that the petitioner was admittedly appointed in the school though as untrained on 23.6.1975 whereas the respondent no. 9. Mr. Singh by referring to one another circular dated 29.3.1967 of the Government of Bihar, submitted that the petitioner was admittedly appointed in the school though as untrained on 23.6.1975 whereas the respondent no. 5 was appointed on 17.1.1977 and, therefore, in view of this circular dated 29.3.1967, issued by the Government of Bihar, the petitioner has to be held senior to the respondent no. 5 and he is entitled to all the promotional benefit as per the length of service. 10. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 submitted that circular no. 650 dated 2.12.1975 referred to by the petitioner is not applicable in his case since the said circular speaks about the trained teachers working in Non-Government High School, whereas the petitioner was admittedly not a trained teacher when the said circular was issued and, therefore, the same is not applicable in the present case. Mr. Anwar further submitted that as a matter of fact the main circular which has to be taken into consideration and which is relevant in the present case is Annexure-16 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, i.e. the circular no. 519 dated 2.7.1983. Clause-IV(1g) clearly speaks that seniority of those Assistant Teachers appointed after 18.9.1972 would be counted from the date they obtain teachers training because as per the Government's notification dated 18.9.1972, in a High School the minimum eligibility criteria for appointment of an Assistant Teacher is that the candidate must be a trained graduate and therefore, as per this circular the vis-a-vis seniority has to be counted from the date an Assistant Teacher obtains teachers training and not from any other date. The relevant extract of the aforementioned Circular dated 2.7.1983 is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- "Circular No. 519 dated 2.7.1983. Clause-IV ¼[k½ 8-9-72 ds ckn fu;qDr izf”kf{kr Lukrd f”k{kdksa dh ojh;rk muds izf”k{k.k izkfIr dh frfFk ls gksxh D;ksafd jktdh; vf/klwpuk la[;k 2709 fnukad 18-9-72 ds vuqlkj mPp fo|ky; esa f”k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr ds fy, U;wure vgZrk izf”kf{kr Lukrd dh fu/kkZfjr dh tk pqdh FkhA 11. Clause-IV ¼[k½ 8-9-72 ds ckn fu;qDr izf”kf{kr Lukrd f”k{kdksa dh ojh;rk muds izf”k{k.k izkfIr dh frfFk ls gksxh D;ksafd jktdh; vf/klwpuk la[;k 2709 fnukad 18-9-72 ds vuqlkj mPp fo|ky; esa f”k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr ds fy, U;wure vgZrk izf”kf{kr Lukrd dh fu/kkZfjr dh tk pqdh FkhA 11. Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties and after going through the circulars and orders referred by the respective learned Senior Counsels, I find that there is no dispute that for appointment of Assistant Teachers in a High School, the minimum required qualification is that a candidate must be a trained graduate whereas the petitioner though was not having teachers training degree was appointed by the Managing Committee of the School on 23.6.1975, i.e. prior to the date on which the school in question was given permission and even prior to the date on which it was recognized in the year 1977 but he obtained the teachers training only on 1.8.1981. The circular of the Government contained in Annexure-16 to the writ petition already noticed hereinabove, clearly speaks that since the minimum eligibility criteria for appointment of an Assistant Teacher in the High School is graduate trained and therefore, inter se seniority of the trained teachers working in the school has to be decided counting their length of service from the date they obtained teachers training. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner obtained teachers training on 1.8.1981 whereas the respondent no. 5 was already trained on the date of her appointment in the school, i.e. on 17.1.1977, therefore, there is not doubt in my mind that respondent no. 5 shall rank senior to the petitioner. The Director, Secondary Education has rightly passed the impugned order contained in Annexure-15 declaring the respondent no. 5 to be senior to the petitioner. 12. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order contained in Annexure-15 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, except that portion of the order whereby he has directed the Headmaster of the School in question to recover the payment made to the writ petitioner in excess due to wrong fixation of salary. Since it is not the case of the respondent State that the petitioner was instrumental in wrong fixation of his salary by making any misrepresentation of any kind and, therefore, in my view, the order for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner cannot be sustained. Since it is not the case of the respondent State that the petitioner was instrumental in wrong fixation of his salary by making any misrepresentation of any kind and, therefore, in my view, the order for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, that part of the order contained in Annexure-15 whereby the order for recovery of the excess amount from the petitioner has been passed is hereby quashed. The rest part of the order contained in Annexure-15 passed by the Director, Secondary Education declaring the respondent no. 5 to be senior to the petitioner. The concerned respondents must give consequential benefits to the respondent no. 5 without any further delay preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. 13. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed with the above observations and directions.