Mihir Kumar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the two petitioners have made the following prayer: – “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the memo no. 1443 dated 12.4.2012 issued under the signature of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Begusarai by which he has directed the Block Education Officer, Bachhawara cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Bachhawara by which he has directed the Block Education Officer, Bachhawara cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Bachhawara for verification of pay fixation of the teachers from the District Accounts Officer, Begusarai and if the excess payment has been received then the same be recovered and deposited in Treasury and further for quashing the letter no. 2308 dated 18.7.2012 issued under the signature of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Begusarai by which he has directed for recovery of one installment of alleged excess payment due to fixation without considering the facts and circumstances under which the fixation has been made on the basis of direction of the authority and in accordance with the provision and as per the memo no. 790 dated 29.7.2011. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of prohibition by restraining the respondent authorities concerned to not make any recovery from the salary of the petitioners as the petitioners payment have been made on the basis of memo no. 790 dated 29.7.2011 issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of prohibition by restraining the respondent authorities concerned to not lower down the pay scale of the petitioners as fixation has been made as per the direction of the memo no. 790 dated 29.7.2011 and allow the petitioners to get the scale which has been given by the authority to the petitioners. (iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to pay the salary of the petitioners as per the fixation made by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer in accordance with the State Govt. resolution.” 3. (iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to pay the salary of the petitioners as per the fixation made by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer in accordance with the State Govt. resolution.” 3. From the reading of the impugned order passed by the District Programme Officer (Establishment) dated 12.4.2012 it would appear that there was a general direction for making verification of salary paid to the teachers in Bachhawara Block in the district of Begusarai wherein the following directions were given: – ^^ftyk dk;ZØe f'k{kk foHkkx csxwljk;A lsok esa] Á[k.M f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh≶&fudklh ,oa p;u inkf/kdkjh] Á[k.M cNOkkM+kA csxwljk; fnukad fo"k; & ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx ds Kkikad 790 fnukad 29-7-2011 vkyksd esa ÁHkkfor f'k{kdksa dk ftyk ys[kk inkf/kdkjh lR;kiu ds fcuk osru ,oa cdk;k osru fudklh ds laca/k esaA Álax & dks"kkxkj inkf/kdkjh csxwljk; dk Kkikad 98 fnukad 24-3-2012 egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d ,oa Áklafxd i= ds vkyksd esa ekuo lalk/ku foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk ds Kkikad 790 fnukad 29-7-2011 ,oa v/kksgLrk{kjh dk;Z blls lacaf/kr fuxZr i=ksa esa mPp ;ksX;rk/kkjh vÁf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa 01-10-2003 ds ÁHkko ls 4500&7000 esa osru fu/kkZj.k dj ftyk inkf/kdkjh] csxwljk; }kjk lR;kiu djkus dk funsZ'k gSa ijUrq dks"kkxkj csxwljk; ds Kkikad 98 fnukad 24-3-2012 }kjk fuxZr i= ls Li"V dj ftyk ys[kk inkf/kdkjh] csxwljk; ls osru fu/kkZj.k dk lR;kiu gh xyr osru fuèkkZj.k }kjk foi= la[;k 130, 121, 122@11&12 }kjk ls fudklh fd;k gS lkFk gh foi= esa ;g ÁHkko i= vafdr fd;k fd lR;rk ,oa 'kq}rk dh tkap dj yh xbZ gS rFkk vf/kd tkus ij ,deq'r olwyh dj yh tk;sxh ;g ,d xaHkhj ekeyk gSA vr% vkidks funsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mPp ;ksX;rk/kkjh f'k{kdksa dk osru fuèkkZj.k dk lR;kiu ftyk inkf/kdkjh] csxwljk; }kjk vfoyEc djk;k tk;A ;fn lR;kiu esa ÁkIr fd;s x;s tkus dh lwpuk Áfrosfnr gksrh gS rks ftyk ys[kk inkf/kdkjh }kjk lR;kfir osru fu/kkZj.k ls vf/kd fudklh fd;s x;s cdk;k oks HkRrk dh jkf'k ,deq'r olwyh dj ,sls lHkh f'k{kdksa dk dks"kkxkj }kjk jkf'k tek fd;k tk;A vkidk rFkk lacaf/kr ,sls lHkh f'k{kdksa dk rc rd LFkfxr jgsxk] tc rd vf/kd yh xbZ jkf'k dks"kkxkj esa tk; rFkk bl vk'k; dk Áek.k i= dks"kkxkj inkf/kdkjh }kjk u djk;k tk;A** 4. As a matter of fact the subsequent impugned order dated 18.7.2012 also is a somewhat general direction again to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of Bachhawara Block wherein the District Programme Officer (Establishment) has reiterated the Government decision with regard to making recovery of excess amount drawn from such of the teachers who were not entitled to get their pay fixation in the Matric trained pay scale with effect from 1.10.2003. The impugned order dated 18.7.2012 also reads as follows: – ^^i=kad 2308 Ás"kd&Jh vfuy dqekj ftyk dk;ZØe inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ f'k{kk foHkkx csxwljk;A lsok esa] Á[k.M f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh lg&fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh Á[k.M&cNOkM+kA csxwljk; fnukad 18-7-2012 fo"k; & ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx ds Kkikad 790 fnukad 29-7-2011 vkyksd esa ÁHkkfor f'k{kdksa dk ftyk ys[kk inkf/kdkjh }kjk fd;s x;s osru fu/kkZj.k ls vfèkd yh xbZ jkf'k ,deq'r olwyh ds laca/k esaA Álax & dks"kkxkj inkf/kdkjh csxwljk; dk Kkikad 9216 fnukad 3-7-2012- egk'k;] mi;qDr fo"k; ,oa Álax esa dguk gS fd ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx fcgkj iVuk ds i=kad 790 fnuakad 29-7-2011 ds vuqikyu esa v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk vkids Á[k.M ds mPp ;ksX;rk/kkjh vÁf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dks fnukad 1-10-2003 ds ÁHkko ls eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr osrueku Lohd`r fd;k x;k gSa bl Lohd`R;kns'k ds i'pkr ftyk ys[kk inkf/kdkjh csxwljk; ls osru fu/kkZj.k dk lR;kiuksijkUr vuqekU; osru dh fudklh vkids }kjk fd;k tkuk FkkA dks"kkxkj inkf/kdkjh csxwljk; us vius i=kad 216 fnukad 3-7-2012 }kjk lwfpr fd;k gS fd ekpZ ekg esa cNokM+k Á[k.M ds dqN f'k{kdksa dk Áf'k{k.kksijkUr cdk;k vUrj osru fcuk ftyk ys[kk inkf/kdkjh ds lR;kiu ds fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh }kjk ;g Áek.k i= vafdr djrs gq, fd vf/kd fudklh dk ekeyk cuus ij ,deq'r fudklh dj fy;k tk;sxk] xyr fuèkkZj.k dj vf/kd fudklh dj yh xbZ FkhA ftu f'k{kdksa dk ekg ekpZ esa fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh }kjk vf/kd fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k Fkk mUgha dfeZ;ksa dk ftyk ys[kk inkf/kdkjh }kjk osru fu/kkZj.k djokdj vc ekfld foi= ÁLrqr fd;k tk jgk gS ysfdu vHkh rd iwoZ esa vf/kd yh xbZ jkf'k dh ,deq'r olwyh lacaf/kr ljdkjh lsod ls ugha dh xbZ gSA funsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ftyk ys[kk inkf/kdkjh csxwljk; }kjk fd;s x;s osru fu/kkZj.k ls vf/kd yh xbZ jkf'k ,deq'r olwyh dj dks"kkxkj esa tek djkus dh dkjZokbZ dh tk; rFkk d`r dkjZokbZ ls v/kksgLrk{kjh dks lwfpr fd;k tk;A vf/kd yh xbZ jkf'k dks ,deq'r olwyh ds i'pkr~ gh vkxs fdlh foi= dh fudklh dh tk;A gLrk{kj@& vLi"V 16-7-2012 ¼vfuy dqekj½ ftyk dk;ZØe inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ f'k{kk foHkkx csxwljk;A** 5. As a matter of fact this writ application was filed on 26.9.2012 at a point of time when immediately after detection of the fact that a large number of teachers in Begusarai District were wrongly granted the benefit of Matric trained pay scale by misconstruing the Government resolution dated 29.7.2012. 6. As a matter of fact this writ application was filed on 26.9.2012 at a point of time when immediately after detection of the fact that a large number of teachers in Begusarai District were wrongly granted the benefit of Matric trained pay scale by misconstruing the Government resolution dated 29.7.2012. 6. As would be noticed from the contents of the aforementioned two orders they are quite general in nature and no flaw can be found in such directions, inasmuch as if any wrong payment has been made to any teacher to which he was not entitled that is bound to be recovered. The aspect with regard to recovery of an excess amount of salary drawn by a Government servant stands settled in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 , wherein the law has been laid down in the following terms: – “13. We are not convinced that this Court in various judgments referred to hereinbefore has laid down any proposition of law that only if the State or its officials establish that there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the excess pay, then only the amount paid could be recovered. On the other hand, most of the cases referred to hereinbefore turned on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases either because the recipients had retired or were on the verge of retirement or were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy. 14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “taxpayers’ money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions 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. 15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case and in Col. B.J. Akkara case, the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered.” 7. As a matter of fact there is lack of complete detail which can even go to show as to how the petitioners are aggrieved by the aforementioned order, inasmuch as in none of the two impugned orders the name of the petitioners figure. 8. From the averments made in the writ application it is also clear that both the petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground on 12.8.1996 and 10.10.1996 and while petitioner no.1 was a graduate at the time of his appointment, petitioner no.2 was only Intermediate at the time of his appointment. They have very conveniently not brought their appointment letter which in no uncertain terms carries the terms and conditions of appointment including their payment of salary in the Matric trained pay scale till they would acquire their qualification of a Matric trained teachers after completing the teachers training course. According to the petitioners, they have passed their teachers training course on 20.6.2005 and in normal circumstances they would be entitled for their grant of Matric trained pay scale only with effect from passing of teachers training examination i.e. 20.6.2005. 9. The petitioners, however, want that they should be given the benefit of Matric trained pay scale with effect from 1.10.2003 on the basis of Government resolution dated 29.7.2011. 9. The petitioners, however, want that they should be given the benefit of Matric trained pay scale with effect from 1.10.2003 on the basis of Government resolution dated 29.7.2011. From a bare reading of the resolution dated 29.7.2011 it would appear that the same was issued in respect of a specific category of appellants before this Court who already been granted their Matric trained pay scale in view of their having higher qualification at the time of their appointment through the Bihar Public Service Commission. The petitioners are not in any way covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Chandra Kanta vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2010(4) PLJR 732 . In the case of Chandra Kanta (supra) the Division Bench had actually issued a direction for the appellants before this Court in the batch of those cases for one time relaxation as would be apparent from paragraph no. 30 of the aforementioned judgment which reads 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 direction 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 has 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 line as given to those who have passed in the first attempt.” 10. For them the date will vary but benefit should be on same line as given to those who have passed in the first attempt.” 10. The subsequent Government decision dated 29.7.2011 issued only by way of implementation of the aforementioned observations of the Division Bench in the case of Chandra Kanta (supra) which reads as follows: – ^^fcgkj ljdkj ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx ladYi fo"k; & jkT; ds ÁkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa f'k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh 1991 ds vuqlkj fu;qDr vÁf'kf{kr mPp ;ksX;rk/kkjh f'k{kdksa dks Áf'kf{kr osrueku dh Lohd`frA ÁkjafHkd f'k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh 1991 ds vuqlkj jkT; ds ÁkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa fyf[kr ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr dh x;hA Áf'kf{kr ,oa vÁf'kf{kr nksuksa Ádkj ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dh fu;qfDr dh x;hA fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh esa Ákoèkku Fkk fd tks mEehnokj Áf'kf{kr gSa mUgas eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr osrueku fn;k tk;sxk ,oa tks mEehnokj vÁf'kf{kr gSa mUgsa vÁf'kf{kr osrueku fn;k tk;sxk rFkk Áf'k{k.k ijh{kk esa mÙkh.kZ gksus ij mUgas eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr osrueku fn;k tk;sxkA 1- funs'kd ¼ÁkŒ f'kŒ½ ds i=kad 998 fnukad 07-08-1995 ds }kjk mPp ;ksX;rkèkkjh vÁf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dks Hkh Áf'kf{kr osrueku 1200&2040@& Lohd`r fd;k x;kA fnukad 01-01-1996 ls jkT; ds dfeZ;ksa ds osru dk iqujh{k.k fd;k x;kA foÙk foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k 660 ch ¼2½ fnukad 08-02-1999 ds }kjk fnukad 01-01-1996 ls Áf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dks 4500&7000 dk osrueku rFkk vÁf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dks 3050&4590@& :i;s dk osrueku Lohd`r fd;k x;kA iqu% f'k{kd la?k ls le>kSrk ds vkyksd esa foRr foHkkx ds i=kad 3805 fnukad 25-06-1999 ds }kjk vÁf'kf{kr mPp ;ksX;rk/kkjh ÁkFkfed f'k{kdksa dks 4500&7000@& :i;s dk osrueku bl 'kRrZ ds lkFk Lohd`r fd;k x;k fd ;fn os Áf'k{k.k ÁkIr dj fy;s gksa rks mUgsa ;g osrueku rRdky vkSicaf/kd :i ls ns; gksxkA 2- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa nk;j eqdnek lhŒMCywŒtsŒlhŒ la[;k 7103@99 Jh fou; dqekj jk; cuke jkT; ljdkj esa fnukad 17-05-2000 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa foRr foHkkx }kjk iqu% ekeys dh leh{kk djrs gq, bl dksfV ds f'k{kdksa dks fnukad 01-01-1996 ls osrueku 3050&4590 Lohd`r fd;k x;k vkSj vfrfjDr yh xbZ jkf'k dh olwyh dk funs'k fn;k x;kA fdUrq ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds rgr jkf'k dh olwyh LFkfxr dj nh xbZA Áklafxd ekeys esa iwoZ esa fn;s x;s Áf'kf{kr osrueku dks cuk;s j[kus ds fy, f'k{kdksa }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa ,yŒihŒ,Œ la[;k&412@03 nk;j fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk ,yŒihŒ,Œ la[;k 412@03 esa fnukad 23-09-2010 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk dafMdk 1 esa of.kZr dksfV ds f'k{kdksa ds lEcU/k esa fuEukafdr fu.kZ; fy, x;s gSaA ¼d½ mPp ;ksX;rk/kkjh vÁf'kf{kr f'k{kd ftUgksaus ÁFke Á;kl ls Áf'k{k.k ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ dj fy;k gks mUgsa fnukad 01-10-2003 ds ÁHkko ls rFkk nwljs ÁHkko ls mÙkh.kZ gksus okys vÁf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dks ijh{kk esa 'kkfey gksus dh frfFk ¼tks fnukad 01-10-2003 ds ckn gks½ ls eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr dk osrueku Lohd`r fd;k tk,A blds QyLo:i f'k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh 1991 dh dafMdk 11 dk ,d ckj Á;ksx ds :i esa f'kfFky ekuk tk;sxkA bl dksfV ds f'k{kdksa ds }kjk eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr osrueku esa fy;s x;s vfrfjDr osru dh olwyh ugha dh tk;sxhA vkns'k & vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl ladYi dks fcgkj xtV ds vlk/kkj.k vad esa Ádkf'kr fd;k tk,A fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls gLrk{kj@& ¼Ádk'k dqekj flag½ ljdkj ds fo'ks"k lfpoA Kkikad&7@osru&14@07 720 iVuk] fnukad 29-7-2011** 11. The applicability of the aforementioned circular in cases where such Matric trained pay scale was already not granted prior to 29.7.2011 was gone into in the case of Rahul Kumar vs. the State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2012(4) PLJR 586 , wherein it was held as follows: – “7. In Chandra Kant (supra) noticing the promulgation of the Bihar Elementary School Teachers Appointment Rules framed on 8.10.1991 the finding is that Rule 11 prohibits grant of trained scale unless and until the incumbent has acquired the training qualification. No executive instruction could dilute the same. The ratio or the discussion cannot be deduced devoid of the facts of the case which can be noticed from para 10 of the judgment. The petitioners therein had completed their training but the examination was not being held. More over the results were published long after the examination was held. The findings are to be noticed in para 29 that no mandamus could be issued for grant of the trained scale contrary to Rule 11. It was in the special facts as noticed in para 30 of the judgment, attributable to the inability of the State Government to hold the required examination within reasonable time causing hardship and sufferance to those who had completed the training but examination could not be held, noticing the power in Rule 11 for relaxation directions were given to consider their cases in accordance with law.” 12. Thus, in absence of any detail as to how the petitioners would be covered by the judgment of Chandra Kanta (supra) when they had not been recruited through the Bihar Public Service Commission and were specifically governed by their own specific terms and conditions of their appointment letter based on compassion and were definitely not given the Matric trained pay scale on the basis of their higher qualification prior to 29.7.2011 their cases will have to be governed only on the basis of their terms of appointment. As noted above, the petitioners have not brought either the appointment letter on record nor the order by which they were granted Matric trained pay scale nor even a letter by which the date of grant of Matric trained pay scale was sought to be shifted from 1.10.2003 to 20.6.2005. 13. As noted above, the petitioners have not brought either the appointment letter on record nor the order by which they were granted Matric trained pay scale nor even a letter by which the date of grant of Matric trained pay scale was sought to be shifted from 1.10.2003 to 20.6.2005. 13. As a matter of fact it is this aspect which has also sought to be clarified in the impugned order passed by the Director, Primary Education on 3.9.2012 which is more or less by way of clarification in respect of a query made by the District Education Officer, Saharsa. The said order dated 3.9.2012 for the sake of clarity and convenient is quoted hereinbelow: – ^^i=kad&7@foŒ 3&19@2012 f'k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj Ás"kd] vk'kqrks"k] HkkŒoŒlsŒ funs'kd ¼ÁkFkfed f'k{kk½ lsok esa] ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] lgjlkA iVuk] fnukad----------- fo"k; & foHkkxh; ladYi ¼790 fnukad 29-07-2011½ ,oa foHkkxh; i=kad 122@fnukad 10-02-2012 ds vkyksd esa f}rh; Á;kl esa mÙkh.kZ f'k{kdksa dks fnukad 20-05-2004 ls eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr osrueku ds laca/k esa ekxZn'kZuA Álax & egklfpo] fcgkj jkT; ÁkFkfed f'k{kk la?k] iVuk dk i=kad&50 fnukad 10-04-2012 egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d i=ksa dk d`i;k Lej.k djuk pkgsaxsA mDr i= ds }kjk ;g Li"V djk fn;k x;k gS fd 1991 fu;ekoyh ls fu;qDr oSls mPp ;ksX;rk/kkjh f'k{kd ftUgksaus 2003 ls Áf'k{k.k ÁkIr dj fy;k gks vkSj bl fufer vkgwr ÁFke ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksdj ÁFke Á;kl esa gh ikl gq, gksa mUgsa fnukad 01-10-2003 ls eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr½ dks osrueku ns;s gksxkA mDr ;fn f}rh; Á;kl esa ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksdj mRrhZ.k gks rks f}rh; ijh{kk eas lfEefyr gksus dh frfFk ls gh mUgsa eSfVªd ¼Áf'kf{kr½ dk osrueku ns; gksxkA** 14. The said decision of the Director, Primary Education infact is in complete conformity with the Bihar Elementary Teacher Appointment Rules, which reads as follows: ^^11- ojh;rk lwph ls vkj{k.k fu;eksa dk vuqikyu djrs gq, fjfDr;ksa dks Hkjus ds fy, fuEu Ádkj dkjZokbZ dh tk;xh%& ¼1½ tks mEehnokj Áf'kf{kr gSa mUgsa eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr osrueku esa fu;qDr fd;k tk;xkA ¼2½ tks mEehnokj vÁf'kf{kr gSa mUgsa eSfVªd vÁf'kf{kr osrueku ds ÁkjfEHkd osrueku esa fuEu 'krksZ ds lkFk fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxk%& ¼d½ Áf'k{k.k ds fy, Áfrfu;qDr fd;s tkus ij mlesa i;kZIr dkj.k ds Hkkx u ysus ij lsok lekIr dj nh tk;sxhA ¼[k½ Áf'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 vuqRrh.kZ jgrk gS rks mldh lsok lekIr dj nh tk;sxhA ¼x½ Áf'k{k.k dh vof/k esa le;≤ ij fu/kkZfjr nj ij o`frdk ek= ns; gksxhA Áf'k{k.k vof/k ds fy, osru ns; ugha gksxkA ¼?k½ dafMdk ^^[k** esa fufnZ"V ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZ gksus ds mijkUr eSfVªd Áf'kf{kr osrueku fn;k tk;sxkA** (underlining for emphasis) 15. As would be evident a teacher appointed in untrained Matric pay scale would be entitled in terms of the aforementioned Rule 11 only with effect from the date of passing of his training examination and therefore, no executive instruction is capable of supplanting the statutory Rules, an aspect which was also covered by the Division Bench in the case of Chandra Kanta (supra), wherein it was held as follows: – “27. Rule 11 of the Rules has already been extracted and noticed earlier. The wordings of the entire scheme in that rule are clearly mandatory and do not permit any deviation through an administrative decision by the State. In the matter of grant of scale while appointing untrained teachers under the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, the State Government had no scope to obliterate the qualification between trained teachers and untrained teachers. They had to be appointed and placed in two different scales and the untrained teachers can get the other higher scale only on fulfilling the conditions prescribed in Rule 11, i.e. only on passing the training examination. Earlier executive decision of 1989 may exist in respect of earlier appointees but that cannot be applied to those elementary teachers who were appointed after the framing of the Rules of 1991. Earlier executive decision of 1989 may exist in respect of earlier appointees but that cannot be applied to those elementary teachers who were appointed after the framing of the Rules of 1991. For such later appointees like the appellants the Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution alone shall hold the field, particularly when the provisions in Rule 11 are found to be mandatory. Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution have legislative flavour and executive decision in the light of power available to the State under Article 162 of the Constitution can not supplant the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. On facts, it is found that decision of 1989 do not supplement the Rules rather they clearly run counter to such rules. Hence, for the teachers appointed after enforcement of 1991 Rules, the decision of 1989 cannot co-exist in the matter of appointment in the scales prescribed by the Rules. 28. Such later appointees have to be granted pay scales as determined by the Government from time to time in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules. So far agreement requiring acceptance of recommendations of FAC is concerned, there can be no quarrel with the proposition of law that there can be no estoppel against statute. Further, a writ court cannot issue mandamus against provisions in the Rules which do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The judgment of Apex Court in the case of Purushottam Lal vs. Union of India (supra) was in an entirely different fact situation and related to grievance by members within a particular service. It has no application in the facts of the present case. 29. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings, we find ourselves in agreement with the views of the learned Single Judge that grant of lower scale of pay to untrained teachers is in conformity with Rule 11 of the Rules and is also based on sound reasons. Hence, it is not possible to issue a writ of mandamus to implement the recommendations of the FAC. Grant of matric trained scale to untrained teachers cannot be directed by this Court, particularly due to provisions in the Rules. In that view of the matter the Apex Court also in the case of Ram Vijay Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others (supra) directed only for completing the training of untrained teachers within two years.” 16. Grant of matric trained scale to untrained teachers cannot be directed by this Court, particularly due to provisions in the Rules. In that view of the matter the Apex Court also in the case of Ram Vijay Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others (supra) directed only for completing the training of untrained teachers within two years.” 16. Thus, in view of the statutory provisions this Court would not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Director, Primary Education on 3.9.2012 and the petitioners’ challenge to the same must be rejected. 17. In view of above, this writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the Director, Primary Education who upon examining the individual facts of the case of the petitioners as with regard to the date of their grant of Matric trained scale of pay, only w.e.f. the date of passing the Teachers Training Examination as per Rule-11 and the terms and conditions of their appointment letter would take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.