ORDER Mihir Kumar Jha, J.-Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the petitioner’s grievance for payment of salary in the matric trained pay scale from the date he had completed his teachers training course would be in teeth of the terms and conditions of his appointment as contained in Office Order dated 17.07.1996, this Court must hold the present writ application to be wholly misconceived. 2. It is not in doubt that the petitioner came to be appointed on compassionate Ground on the post of a teacher by an appointment letter dated 17.7.96 containing a specific condition in its Clause-2 relevant part whereof reads as follows:- <span class="Hfont">^^ftyk vuqdEik lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 21-12-95 fnukad 29-12-95 ,oa 1-2-96 esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj lekgRrkZ lg ftyk vuqdEik lfefr iVuk ds dze'k% Kkikad 107 fnukad 12-1-96 Kkikad 110 fnukad 16-1-96 ,oa Kkikad 478 fnukad 16-2-96 ds vkyksd esa rFkk ftyk f'k{kk LFkkiuk lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 24-6-96 esa loZlEer ls fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa e`r f'k{kd@f'kf{kdkvksa ds vkfZJr] tks vHkh fdlh Hkh ljdkjh lsok esa ugha gS dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij dkfeZd foHkkx ds i=kad 2822 fnukad 27-4-95 ds vkyksd esa eSfVªd vizf'kf{kr osrueku 975&25&1150&30&1540 rFkk vuqekU; HkRrs ds lkFk lgk;d f'k{kd ds in ij fuEukafdr 'krksZa ds lkFk fu;qDr dj ;ksxnku dh frfFk ls inLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gSA ;g fu;qfDr fcYdqy vLFkk;h gS rFkk fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds lsok lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA 2- uofu;qDr f’k{kd@f’kf{kdk dks vius O;; ij nks o”kksZ ds vUnj izf’k{k.k izkIr djuk vfuok;Z gS] blds fy, izkFkfed f’k{kd f’k{k.k egkfo|ky; esa LFkku miyC/k djk;k tk;sxkA bUgsa izf’k{k.k vof/k esa osrukfn ns; ugha gksxkA** 3. In view of the aforementioned conditions imposed in the appointment letter, wherein, the petitioner and eight others were sought to be appointed on compassionate ground in the matric untrained pay scale of Rs. 975-1540/-, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he would be entitled for payment of his salary in the matric trained pay scale from the date he had merely completed the teachers training course though not passed the examination of such Teachers Training Course. 975-1540/-, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he would be entitled for payment of his salary in the matric trained pay scale from the date he had merely completed the teachers training course though not passed the examination of such Teachers Training Course. As a matter of fact such appointment by way an exception and infact on grace and compassion in the cadre of teachers requiring appointment of only trained persons could not have bestowed any right to a person continue in service if he/she had not passed teachers training course in the fixed period of two years and therefore the payment of salary in matric trained pay scale could also have been made only when he or she could have become trained after passing of the prescribed teachers training examination. 4. Mr. Amit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, had placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Chandrakant & Ors vs The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2010(4) PLJR 732 which according to him would also cover the case of the petitioner. It has been pointed out by Mr. Prakash that in paragraph no. 30 the Division Bench had directed the State Government to relax the statutory rules for allowing payment of salary to the untrained teachers from any particular date as they had passed the training examination in June-2005. Mr. Prakash, would explain that the petitioner also had passed the training examination in June 2005 and as the State Government had in the cases of those persons covered by the judgment of Chandra Kant (supra) relaxed the date and fixed 01.10.2003, the petitioner also should be given the same benefit in the matter of fixation of salary in the matric trained pay scale. 5. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand would submit that the case of Chandra Kant (supra) is quite distinguishable on facts. 5. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand would submit that the case of Chandra Kant (supra) is quite distinguishable on facts. He would in this regard explain that the petitioner in fact was not entitled for payment of any salary for the period he was undergoing training in terms of his appointment letter and therefore, once the petitioner has been paid his salary in the untrained pay scale even for the period he had undergone training, there would be no question of being paid his salary in the matric trained pay scale from the date he had completed the training course before actually passing the actual examination of such teachers training course. In this context, he has also relied on Rule-11 of Bihar Elementary Schools Teachers Appointment Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, wherein, according to him it has been clearly stipulated that the payment of salary in the matric trained pay scale shall be made only w.e.f. the date of passing of the training examination. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner’s grievance for payment of salary from the date he had actually completed the classes of teachers training course seems to be misconceived primarily on account of the fact that it was already made known to him in his appointment letter that he will only paid his salary in the matric untrained pay scale till he passes the teachers training course inasmuch a person would complete the teachers training course and become trained i.e. <span class="Hfont">^^izf'k{k.k izkIr** only after he would actually pass the prescribed examination. Admittedly, the petitioner has passed the examination in the year 2005 and therefore, irrespective of the fact that whether he had got the first division or third division has passing of the examination becoming trained i.e. <span class="Hfont">izf'k{k.k izkIr only date back to the date of declaration of the result. The petitioner, therefore, has correctly been given the pay scale of matric trained teacher from the date of the declaration of the result in terms of Rule 11. 7. As with regard to the division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chandra Kant (supra) it appears that in that case this court was seized with a different situation altogether. 7. As with regard to the division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chandra Kant (supra) it appears that in that case this court was seized with a different situation altogether. In all those cases the petitioners who were the appellants before the Division Bench were actually appointed in 1994 in the matric untrained pay scale despite having holding higher qualification but were subsequently granted pay scale of matric trained teacher in view of the Government resolution contained in memo no. 999 dated 07.06.1995 w.e.f the date of their appointment i.e. different dates in 1994. They were infact continuing with such benefit of payment of their salary in matric trained pay scale but were later on subjected to an order of stripping off the benefit of the matric trained scale of pay as a result whereof a number of writ applications were filed before this Court and after they were dismissed by the learned Single Judge the matter went in appeal and in the appeal it was held that since the petitioners were being subjected to recovery of huge amount for the period from 1994 to September 2005, the State should evolve a mode by making a one time relaxation in Rule -11 for saving them from being subjected to huge recovery, which could have been made for the amount of salary already received by them in between 1994-2005. It was in this context that in paragraph no. 30, the following observations were made:- “Coming to the last issue, we find merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that due to inability of the State Government to hold the required examination within a reasonable time, the appellants who were successful, have suffered undue hardship. It was in this context that in paragraph no. 30, the following observations were made:- “Coming to the last issue, we find merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that due to inability of the State Government to hold the required examination within a reasonable time, the appellants who were successful, have suffered undue hardship. In that view of the matter, when the examination could not be held within two years in spite of directions of the Apex Court and even later, as per directions of this Court, we are of the view that the State Government which has the necessary powers, must take steps to relax Rule 11 of the Rules as a one time measure within a reasonable time and take a prompt decision to grant Matric trained scale to the teachers who have passed the in-service training examination in June, 2005 from any date which may be found suitable and reasonable so as not to affect such teachers adversely for the unusual delay in holding the training examination. It would be reasonable and appropriate to grant matric trained scale to such teachers as indicated above from any reasonable date, may be from the date when the period of two years fixed by the Apex Court for completing the training of such teachers expired without compliance or even from 1.10.2003, i.e. when actual payment in Matric trained scale was stopped. Keeping in view the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution, benefit of advancing the date for grant of Matric trained scale, as indicated above will also be made available to such teachers who may pass the training examination in the second attempt. For them the date will vary but benefit should be on same lines as given to those who have passed in the first attempt.” 8. It would thus be clear from the aforementioned observations and directions of the Division Bench in paragraph no. For them the date will vary but benefit should be on same lines as given to those who have passed in the first attempt.” 8. It would thus be clear from the aforementioned observations and directions of the Division Bench in paragraph no. 30 of the judgment in the case of Chandra Kant(supra) that the Division Bench had taken such view on account of petitioners/appellants having already received the payment of salary in the Matric Trained pay scale for a long period of time and later on being subjected to huge recovery as would be also evident from the following of passage of the same judgment:- “The two scales provided by the State Government in its resolution dated 18.2.1989 though of the period prior to the notification of the Rules in the 1991, fell for reconsideration due to general demand of the State Government Employees and for some reasons got implemented in respect of writ petitioners also. A decision contained in memo no. 999 dated 07.06.1995 issued under the signature of Director (Primary Education), Govt. of Bihar discloses that the decision was taken in the light of an agreement between the Government and some Unions/Associations. That decision did not make any distinction between the teacher appointed under the earlier Rules and those appointed in 1994 pursuant to the Rules of 1991. As a result the writ petitioners got matric trained scale on account of their higher qualification although they were not trained, with effect from the date of their appointment.” 9. Such exercise in their case constituting special facts of that case cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner for whom the compassion was already shown by appointing him despite he was even untrained matriculate at the time of his initial appointment. 10. Such exercise in their case constituting special facts of that case cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner for whom the compassion was already shown by appointing him despite he was even untrained matriculate at the time of his initial appointment. 10. In this regard it would be also relevant to refer to the provisions of statutory Rule-11 which reads as follows:- <span class="Hfont">11- ojh;rk lwph ls vkj{k.k fu;eksa dk vuqikyu djrs gq, fjfDr;ksa dks Hkjus ds fy, fuEu izdkj dkjZokbZ dh tk;xhA ¼1½ tks mEehnokj izf’kf{kr gS mUgsa eSfVªd izf’kf{kr osrueku esa fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxkA ¼2½ tks mEehnokj vizf’kf{kr gS mUgsa eSfVªd vfizf’kf{kr osrueku ds izkjfEHkd osrueku esa fuEu ‘krksZ ds lkFk fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxk %& ¼d½ izf’k{k.k ds fy, izfrfu;qDr fd;s tkus ij mlesa i;kZIr dkj.k ds Hkkx u ysus ij lsok lekIr dj nh tk;sxhA ¼[k½ izf’k{k.k mijkUr ijh{kk yh tk;sxh mlesa mEehnokj ;fn lQy ugha gksrk gS rks mls ,d ekSdk vkSj fn;k tk;sxk] ;fn nwljh ckj Hkh og vuqÙkhZ.k jgrk gS rks mldh lsok lekIr dj nh tk;sxhA ¼x½ izf’k{k.k dh vof/k esa le;≤ ij fu/kkZfjr nj ij o`frdk ek= ns; gksxhA izf’k{k.k vof/k ds fy, osru ns; ugha gksxkA ¼?k½ dafMdk Þ[kÞ esa fufnZ”V ijh{kk esa mÙkh.kZ gksus ds mijkUr eSfVªd izf’kf{kr osrueku fn;k tk;sxkA (underlining for emphasis) 11. Thus the aforesaid Rule and its underlined portion which was made part of the his condition of his appointment as quoted above would leave nothing for speculation that the appointment of untrained teacher would make him eligible for grant of salary in the matric trained pay scale from the date he would pass the training examination. Thus in the presence of the statutory Rules and the specific conditions incorporated in the appointment letter of the petitioner he cannot now wriggle out of the situation for claiming payment of salary in the matric trained pay scale from the date he had merely completed the teachers training course. 12. That being so, this application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.