JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned order dated 26th September, 2000, the B.Sc. Trained Scale granted to these petitioners have been withdrawn and the amount drawn in excess on account of such grant of B.Sc. Trained Scale has been ordered to be recovered acting upon the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee meeting held on 21st August, 2000. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset fairly submits that amongst all the seven petitioners, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 7 fall in one category as they were appointed by virtue of resolution dated 18th April, 1988 (Annexure-6) under which the District Education Establishment Committed vide Agenda No. 19 had resolved to appoint B.Sc. Trained candidates falling between serial Nos. 15, 727 and 2931 in the B.Sc. Trained Scale. These three petitioners as per appointment letters contained at Annexure-4 were also appointed in the category of B.Sc. Trained, but were given the Metric Trained Scale at the time of their appointments on 23rd May, 1988. In their cases, the said anomaly in their scale at the time of appointments i.e. Matric Trained Scale were corrected on their representations by subsequent resolution of the District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka dated 30th October, 1989 and benefits of B.Sc. Trained Scale were granted to them w.e.f. 30th October, 1989 itself. Since the grievance of the petitioners were not fully redressed, again on their representations vide resolution dated 15th January, 1996, the B.Sc. Trained Scale was granted to them with effect from their respective dates of appointment and financial benefits accruing with effect from 1st March, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not in dispute that these petitioners were having the qualification of B.Sc. Trained at the time of their appointment and had also submitted their joining in the respective middle schools on the post of B.Sc. Trained. He further submits that in similar circumstances this Court in the case of Madhab Chandra Mahto v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., in W.P. (S) No. 5134 of 2001 has been pleased to quash the same impugned order dated 26th September, 2000 by a judgment delivered on 18th April, 2013. Trained. He further submits that in similar circumstances this Court in the case of Madhab Chandra Mahto v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., in W.P. (S) No. 5134 of 2001 has been pleased to quash the same impugned order dated 26th September, 2000 by a judgment delivered on 18th April, 2013. Since these petitioners fall in same category as the petitioners in other case they also deserve similar treatment and the common impugned order which is assailed by these petitioners also deserves to be quashed in their individual cases. 5. In respect of other four petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, fairly submits that the petitioner No. 3 though was appointed under the same appointment letter of 23rd May, 1988, but he was, in fact, appointed as I.Sc. Trained Teacher Similarly, the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were also appointed as Matric Trained Teachers vide separate order of appointment dated 30th January, 1988, 23rd July, 1988 vide Annexure 4/1 & 4/2 respectively. These petitioners also submitted their joining in the primary school pursuant to their appointment which again is not in dispute. However, these petitioners also claimed the scale of B.Sc. Trained by making representations before the District Education Establishment Committee which resolved in its meeting held on 30th October, 1989 to grant such scale with effect from the same date. Subsequently, District Education Establishment Committee resolved to grant the same B.Sc. Trained Scale with effect from their original appointment vide resolution dated 15th January, 1986 and financial benefits accruing with effect from 1st March, 1989. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these four petitioners had therefore continued to avail of B.Sc. Trained Scale which was being withdrawn by virtue of the impugned order issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka on the basis of report of the Regional Deputy Director and the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee dated 21st August, 2000. However, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that these petitioners though may not have a legal right to claim their appointment on the post of B.Sc. Trained, but the such scale granted to them by conscious decision of the District Education Establishment Committee on their having the said qualification should not be allowed to be withdrawn after such a long time as they have not made any misrepresentation or adopted any fraud in respect of the same. 6. Trained, but the such scale granted to them by conscious decision of the District Education Establishment Committee on their having the said qualification should not be allowed to be withdrawn after such a long time as they have not made any misrepresentation or adopted any fraud in respect of the same. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in respect of three petitioners i.e. petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 7 the decision to cancel the B.Sc. Trained Scale granted to these petitioners have been taken by the District Education Establishment Committee after a report submitted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka, it was found that these petitioners have illegally been granted B.Sc. Trained Scale though they were initially appointed in the Matric Trained Scale as per their individual appointment letters. It was further found that at the time of their appointment the rules of reservation were not followed, roster clearance was not observed though they had been illegally granted B.Sc. Trained Scale, which was detected later on. The petitioners were given notice to object and after considering their objections the impugned order has been passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka. 7. Though the B.Sc. Trained Scale has been cancelled by common impugned order, but learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to refute the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 7 fall amongst the list of candidates at Agenda No. 19 of the resolution dated 18th April, 1988 (Annexure-6) of the District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka whereunder the persons named in the panel were recommended for appointment in the B.Sc. Trained Scale. In. similar circumstances, the same impugned order dated 26th September, 2000 passed in respect of such B.Sc. trained teachers who were in the panel of teachers considered at the same Agenda No. 19 of the resolution dated 18th April, 1988, has been quashed by this Court in the judgment rendered on 18th April, 2013 in W.P. (S) No. 5134 of 2001. These three petitioners i.e. petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 7, therefore, fall in the same category of persons as those covered under the judgment rendered to (supra) and are therefore entitled to similar treatment. 8. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 26th September, 2000, so far as it concerns the petitioner Nos. These three petitioners i.e. petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 7, therefore, fall in the same category of persons as those covered under the judgment rendered to (supra) and are therefore entitled to similar treatment. 8. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 26th September, 2000, so far as it concerns the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 7, cannot be sustained in law and on facts as it tends to take away a vested right accrued in their favour on the basis of their appointments in the B.Sc. Trained Category by the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee dated 18th April, 1988 and whereunder they continued to draw B.Sc. Trained Scale pursuant to the subsequent decision of the District Education Establishment Committee dated 30th October, 1988 and 15th January, 1996. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed so far as it concerns to them. 9. So far as in respect of rest of the petitioners are concerned, it is not in dispute that their initial appointment was in I.Sc./Matric Trained Category and from the averments made in the writ petition at paragraph No. 16, it would be apparent that these petitioners also had made representations before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, the Chairman of the District Education Establishment Committee for grant of B.Sc. Trained Scale apparently on the grounds that they were having the said qualification. On such representation, the District Education Establishment Committee in its resolution dated 30th October, 1989 and subsequent resolution dated 15th January, 1996 decided to grant them B.Sc. Trained Scale though they were not having a legal right for the said post as being appointed on a lesser post i.e. I.Sc./Matric Trained Scale. These petitioners, therefore, cannot claim to have any vested right to have such scale of B.Sc. Trained as it would have been contrary to law. Therefore, the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee held on 21st August, 2000, which forms the basis for issuance of the impugned order on 26th September, 2000, canceling the B.Sc. Trained Scale of these petitioners cannot be said to be suffering from any error of law or of fact. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Trained Scale of these petitioners cannot be said to be suffering from any error of law or of fact. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., rendered in 2012 (4) JCR 144 (SC), to submit that any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be covered barring few exception of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right. In such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. 11. In the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that rest of four petitioners did not have any role to play in grant of such B.Sc. Trained Scale, as it was on their representations that the District Education Establishment Committee resolved to grant them the said scale, which they were not legally entitled to. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be found fault with and no exception can be made in their cases so far as recovery of excess amount paid to them is concerned. However, the respondents would consider imposing easy installment for recovery of excess amount from the salary of these petitioners over a period of time so that it may not cause undue hardship to them. 12. The writ petition is partly allowed so far as it concerns the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 7, namely, Ashok Kumar Mahto, Kanchan GopaI Mandal and Md. Washi Alam and partly dismissed so far as it concerns the rest of the petitioner Nos. 3 to 6, namely, Damodar Prasad Sah, Arjun Pandit, Smt. Rekha Khan, and Vikash Chandra Mandal. However, no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.