HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 14078 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. Rajiv Singh, learned counsel for the State. Present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 11.8.2005 by which the Trained Teacher Pay Scale, which was claimed by the petitioner, has been rejected, in compliance of the order dated 29.11.2024; passed in Writ-A No.11395 of 2024. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has admittedly obtained degree of B.Ed., through distance education, on 1.3.2010 and the same is akin in all sense, to the regular degree of B.Ed. He submitted that the order impugned dated 11.8.2025 has been passed on the wrong pretext that the B.Ed. distance course is not equivalent to the B.Ed. regular course. He added that this matter has already been settled in the case of Gyanendra Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary reported in 2007 SCC Online All 708. Therefore, submission is that the order impugned dated 11.8.2025 is against the settled proposition of law and thus, the same may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that even assuming that the degree of B.Ed. correspondence course is equivalent to the B.Ed. regular course, the petitioner is not otherwise eligible as he was not having T.E.T. certificate on Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prafulla Tiwari, Anuj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh Shailesh Kumar Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 1.3.2010 and, therefore, he is not entitled for the Trained Teacher Pay Scale. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notification has been issued subsequently on 23.8.2010, whereas the petitioner is having degree of B.Ed. prior to that and therefore same is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that the order dated 11.8.2025 has been passed on the ground that the petitioner is having B.Ed. degree with distance course that is equivalent to the regular B.Ed. course. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent University is concerned that the petitioner was not having T.E.T certificate on 1.3.2010, the said ground has not been taken by the authority concerned, while taking decision on 11.8.2025. This Court finds the issue that the B.Ed. degree with distance education is equivalent to the regular B.Ed. course has already been dealt with in Gyanendra Kumar Sharma and others (supra) and the ratio of the said judgement covers the field of issue involved in the present writ petition. Consequently, the order dated 11.8.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar to take decision afresh, in the light of the Judgment and order of Gyanendra Kumar Sharma and others (supra) along with the aforesaid observations made in the this order. It is further provided that subsequent benefit after the petitioner is considered to be entitled to obtain Trained Teacher Pay Scale, shall also be provided to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. December 11, 2025 Ram Murti WRIA No. 14078 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench