JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to AG for the State. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter No. 739 dated 23.03.2011 (Annexure-6), whereby the respondent No. 2 declined to approve the proposal of pay-scale of the headmaster to the petitioner and further prayer has been made to approve proper pay-scale legally payable to the petitioner and pay the arrears and current salary in consequence thereof. 3. The facts as derived from the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 01.02.1986 in Government Aided Religious Minority School, known as Lutheran Middle School, Gumla, run by the Managing Committee. It is stated that vide memo No. 15-21/99 dated 21.10.1999, the respondent No. 4 promoted the petitioner from the post of Assistant Teacher to the post of Headmaster w.e.f. 01.11.1999 in the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3500 on the basis of the decision taken by the School Managing Committee in its meeting held on 08.10.1999. It is further stated that for appointment of Headmaster by promotion, the minimum qualification fixed was Graduate Trained, however, in 2007 minimum qualification for Headmaster was changed to Post Graduate Trained. It is the further case of the petitioner that vide Office Order dated 28.02.2002, the respondent No. 3 approved the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster in the said School in terms of recommendation dated 05.02.2002, issued by the then District Superintendent of Education, Gumla. In view of the said recommendation, the petitioner joined on the post of Headmaster in Lutheran Middle School, Gumla, which was accepted by the respondent No. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Gumla sent proposal for determination of the pay-scale of the petitioner in the 5th Pay Revision along with other four teachers. In compliance of the direction as contained in letter dated 24.03.2009, issued by the respondent No. 2 and subsequent letter dated 24.04.2009, the respondent No. 4 sent the copies of the educational certificates of the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 04.05.2009 for the purpose of approval of the recommendation of the pay-scale of the petitioner in terms of 5th Pay Revision. It has also been stated that petitioner was deprived of his salary due to non-grant of approval by the respondent No. 2, which was pending since 2002 itself. It has also been stated that petitioner was deprived of his salary due to non-grant of approval by the respondent No. 2, which was pending since 2002 itself. When no order was passed by the respondents, petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 6434 of 2010, which was disposed of on 11.04.2011 with a direction to the petitioner to prefer representation before the concerned authorities. The petitioner also preferred Cont. Case (C). No. 664 of 2013 but during the pendency of the writ application, respondents had passed the reasoned order and rejected the case of the petitioner and accordingly, the contempt proceeding was dropped. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner is promoted to the post of Headmaster on which he is still working and is also entitled for full salary which is meant for the post of Headmaster. Learned counsel further submits that at the relevant time when the petitioner was promoted on the post of Headmaster, the minimum qualification for promotion to the post of Headmaster was only Trained Graduate and it is only in the year 2007, a notification was issued for enhancing the educational qualification of Headmaster as Trained Post Graduate. Learned counsel empathetically argues that even taking into account 1993 Rule, the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Headmaster as it has clearly been mentioned in Clause 4 of Rule 5 of the notification dated 08.07.1993 of the Human Resourced Development Department. In Clause 4 of Rule 5 of the notification dated 08.07.1993 it has been stated that “Provided trained graduate teachers belonging to SC and ST may also be considered for promotion to Grade-7 till 31st March, 1995, if trained post-graduate teachers of these categories are not available. Admittedly, the petitioner belonged to ST category.” From perusal of Clause-4, it is very much clear that though it has been mentioned that for promotion to Grade-7 – Trained post-graduate; in the event of promotion from Grade-4 to Grade-7 in case of non-availability of teachers in Grade-6 and Grade-5 minimum five years’ service in Grade-4. Admittedly, the petitioner belonged to ST category.” From perusal of Clause-4, it is very much clear that though it has been mentioned that for promotion to Grade-7 – Trained post-graduate; in the event of promotion from Grade-4 to Grade-7 in case of non-availability of teachers in Grade-6 and Grade-5 minimum five years’ service in Grade-4. Admittedly, the petitioner fulfill all the eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Headmaster and as such, does not come in the way of appointment and as such, a direction be given to the respondents to pay the entire salary of the petitioner due to him from 2002 itself with all consequential benefits. 5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Ms. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that in view of 1993 Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for promotion to the post of Headmaster and as such, rightly the pay-scale has been stopped. He is still working on the post of Headmaster but he is not entitled for the pay-scale which is meant for Headmaster as the same pay-scale has not been approved by the Authority of the State Government. Further, it has been argued that the appointment of the petitioner is itself not approved by the respondent-authorities and as such, there is no question of making the payment on the post of Headmaster. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. There is no legal impediment in granting the pay-scale of the Headmaster to the petitioner. The petitioner appointed on the post of Headmaster following all the procedure laid down in law. At the time of appointment, the Rule which was prevalent was speaks only about Trained Graduate and not about Trained Post-Graduate. The Rule which has come in the year 2005, cannot have the retrospective effect. Since 1993 Rules was taken into consideration by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 5243 of 2011 disposed of on 17.01.2014. All these rules were brought on record and argued at length by the respondents in the said writ petition. The Co-ordinate Bench on that case was of the view that no rule can be given retrospective effect. No. 5243 of 2011 disposed of on 17.01.2014. All these rules were brought on record and argued at length by the respondents in the said writ petition. The Co-ordinate Bench on that case was of the view that no rule can be given retrospective effect. The said view of the Co-ordinate Bench was also considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of N.T. Devin Katti & Ors. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 157 , wherein it has been held that “the service rules – normally operates prospectively unless indicated to the contrary by express language or by necessary implication.” In view of that it can comfortably be held that the rule which was not in existence at the time of promotion of the petitioner to the post Headmaster cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner and also in view of the fact that the respondents were sitting tight over the representation of the petitioner regarding approval for nine long years. It is only when the petitioner approached this Court arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for respondents that there is an alternative remedy and the petitioner may be directed to approach the respondents in appeal. The said argument of learned counsel for the respondents is totally misconceived. It was open for the respondents to reject the case of the petitioner at that very moment, which would enable the petitioner to prefer appeal, if any, provided under the statutory provision. The petitioner is at the fag end of his service career and the respondent-authorities are taking all these plea just to harass the petitioner, which is not acceptable to his Hon’ble Court. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the letter No. 739 dated 23.03.2011 (Annexure-6). In view of quashment of the said letter, the respondents are directed to pay the entire salary of the petitioner due to him since 2002 with all consequential benefits. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.