ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) The present sets of appeals arise from order dated 30.1.2013 passed by a Learned Singh Judge in CWJC No.13734 of 2012 and analogous cases. In question is also the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Civil Review No. 301 of 2013 arising out of the order passed in CWJC No.13734 of 2012. 2. The controversy for consideration is if the benefit for grant of Matric trained scale from 1.10.2013 to teachers appointed as untrained, pursuant to 2010 (4) PLJR 732 (Chandrakant and others vs. the State of Bihar) (DB) is available only to those appointed in 1994 and earlier or will it also be available to untrained appointees after 1994, provided they had passed the in-service training examination till June 2005. The judgment in Chandrakant (supra) was made in rem. 3. The interpretation of Chandrakant (supra) by the Learned Single Judge in the orders under appeal has effect beyond the persons who may or may not have moved the Court directly. The I.A. applications filed for Leave to Appeal and also separately for condoning delay are therefore allowed in general public interest and also to prevent multiplicity of litigations on the same issue. 4. Since we are primarily called upon to decide if the interpretation of Chandrakant (supra) by the Learned Single Judge is correct or not, it is not considered necessary to burden the present order with the facts all over again except to the extent relevant for the present discussion. 5. The issue relates to grant of Matric trained pay scale to untrained teachers appointed under the Bihar Elementary Schools Teachers Appointment Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). In 2001 (4) PLJR 286 (Shivashankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar) it was noticed that pursuant to advertisement dated 8.10.1991, appointments were made in 1994-95 followed by later advertisements and further appointments in later years. In Chandrakant (supra), the appellants constituted a class of persons appointed in untrained capacity whose training examination had not been held within the time frame. The appellants were appointed in variant years from 1994 onwards including compassionate appointees. It was observed as follows :- “30. In Chandrakant (supra), the appellants constituted a class of persons appointed in untrained capacity whose training examination had not been held within the time frame. The appellants were appointed in variant years from 1994 onwards including compassionate appointees. It was observed as follows :- “30. 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 01.10.2013, 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. (emphasis added by us) 32……. It is made clear that this order shall be applied by the respondents in case of appellants as well as all other similarly situated teachers appointed as untrained teachers after coming into force of 1991 Rules.” 6. (emphasis added by us) 32……. It is made clear that this order shall be applied by the respondents in case of appellants as well as all other similarly situated teachers appointed as untrained teachers after coming into force of 1991 Rules.” 6. The Division Bench in Chandrakant (supra) unequivocally made the order applicable to all untrained teachers appointed after coming into force of the Rules, but limited applicability of its order to those who had passed the in-service training examination in June 2005. Those who passed the in-service training examination in the second attempt were also entitled to the benefit from the actual date of passing. By the subsequent order dated 8.8.2012 the Division Bench did not modify this classification but only clarified that the cut-off date for grant of the benefit of trained scale was for the respondents to decide but keeping in mind that seniority was not affected by fixing dates for grant of Matric trained scale. 7. After Chandrakant (supra) the respondents issued notifications dated 29.7.2011 and 10.2.2012. Cumulatively the benefit of Matric trained scale from 1.10.2003 was extended by one time relaxation of Rule 11, to persons appointed not only in 1994 but also to those appointed till the year 2000 but who had cleared the in-service training examination in June, 2005, or from the relevant date for those who passed in the second attempt. 8. In the present set of appeals we are not concerned with the issue of seniority after grant of Matric trained scale as that was not the subject matter of controversy before the Learned Single Judge. Any grievance in that regard has therefore to be the subject matter of a separate proceeding. The solitary issue for us to consider is whether the interpretation by the Learned Single Judge that the benefit of Chandrakant (supra) was available exclusively to persons appointed as untrained in 1994 or earlier excluding subsequent appointees till 2000 or later is correct or not. 9. The fact that Chandrakant (supra) itself contained appellants appointed after 1994 till 2000 was not adequately brought to the attention of the Learned Single Judge and remained in the realm of speculation apparent from the discussion in the orders under appeal. 9. The fact that Chandrakant (supra) itself contained appellants appointed after 1994 till 2000 was not adequately brought to the attention of the Learned Single Judge and remained in the realm of speculation apparent from the discussion in the orders under appeal. Likewise the classification in Chandrakant (supra) that it covered persons whose examination had not been conducted despite orders of the Supreme Court and even later as per directions of this Court and that it covered all appointments under the Rules subject to passing the in-service training examination in June 2005 was again not adequately brought to the attention of the Learned Single Judge. All persons appointed under the 1991 Rules irrespective of the date of appointment but who had cleared the inservice training examination till June, 2005 or later in the second attempt constituted a class. Irrespective of the date of appointment, those who had not cleared the in-service examination till June, 2005 constituted a separate class, excluding those who passed in the second attempt after June 2005. 10. LPA No. 1459 of 2013, LPA No. 1566 of 2013, LPA No. 1597 of 2013, LPA No. 1608 of 2013, LPA Nos. 1651-54 of 2013, LPA No. 1682 of 2013 and LPA No. 1685 of 2013 belong to the first category. LPA No. 1034 of 2013 belongs to the second category. 11. The respondents rightly in correct appreciation of Chandrakant (supra) issued orders on 29.7.2011 and 10.2.2012 cumulatively making it applicable to all teachers appointed under the Rules as untrained irrespective of the date of appointment, but restricted the benefit to those who had cleared the in-service training examination by June, 2005 or from the actual date of passing in second attempt. 12. A controversy was then created where non existed, abetted by lack of proper assistance compounded by an ambivalent counter affidavit by the State officials. It generated wholly unnecessary and avoidable litigation. In CWJC 13734 of 2012 the petitioners consisted of the second category. Though appointed under the Rules about the same time as the persons in the first category they passed in-service training examination after June 2005 (not inclusive of those who passed in the second attempt). The counter affidavit was extremely casual in nature bordering on irresponsibility lacking in proper assistance to the Court. Though appointed under the Rules about the same time as the persons in the first category they passed in-service training examination after June 2005 (not inclusive of those who passed in the second attempt). The counter affidavit was extremely casual in nature bordering on irresponsibility lacking in proper assistance to the Court. It asserted that the benefit of Chandrakant (supra) was available to persons appointed in 1994 only without bothering to verify the fact that the appellants in Chandrakant (supra) consisted not only of persons appointed in 1994 but also till 2000. 13. Chandrakant (supra) is stated to have attained finality questioned by none. The benefit of one time relaxation under it is available only to those who fall within the classification made in it as discussed above. The benefit is not available under it to the second category who may have been appointed upto the year 2000 but who passed the in-service training examination after June 2005. In LPA No. 1034 of 2013, the pleading at paragraph 18 contended that similar benefit of one time relaxation of the Rule must be extended to the second category also. But, the matter appears to have proceeded on a different discussion and that issue was left undecided. 14. The Civil review applications giving rise to some of the appeals were preferred by persons in the first category benefited by Chandrakant (supra) who now stood to be deprived of the same by reason of the interpretation of Chandrakant (supra) by the Learned Single Judge. 15. In 2012 (4) PLJR 586 (Rahul Kumar vs. State of Bihar) (SJ), authored by one of us (Navin Sinha J.) the petitioners were appointed in 2001, but had cleared the training examination after June, 2005 falling in the second category outside the classification of Chandrakant (supra). No law was laid down in Rahul Kumar (supra) that the benefit was available only to 1994 appointees. 16. LPA No. 1459 of 2013, LPA No. 1566 of 2013, LPA No. 1597 of 2013, LPA No. 1608 of 2013, LPA Nos. 1651-54 of 2013, LPA No. 1682 of 2013 and LPA No. 1685 of 2013 belonging to the first category are allowed. 16. LPA No. 1459 of 2013, LPA No. 1566 of 2013, LPA No. 1597 of 2013, LPA No. 1608 of 2013, LPA Nos. 1651-54 of 2013, LPA No. 1682 of 2013 and LPA No. 1685 of 2013 belonging to the first category are allowed. The State Government shall now take necessary corrective actions in accordance with law and the present order with regard to these appellants and others similarly situated within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and or presentation of a copy of the order. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellants in LPA No. 1034 of 2013 submits that the matter may be remitted to the Learned Single Judge for enabling the petitioners to press parity in treatment by similar one time relaxation of Rule as in Chandrakant (supra). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it proper to allow the prayer. The order in CWJC 13734 of 2012 is set aside and the writ petition is remitted to the Learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication. LPA No. 1034 of 2013 is allowed to the extent indicated.