HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 42943 of 2008 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for State. 2. The instant petition has been filed for following reliefs:- "i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.07.2008 (Annexure No. 8 the writ petition) passed by the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Vth Region, Varanasi, the respondent no. 2, whereby he has rejected the representation made by the petitioner seeking relief of payment of salary of trained teacher as per direction contained in judgment and order dated 24.4.2008 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjai Misra, in civil misc. writ petition no. 20731 of 2008 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition). ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make the salary of the petitioner in pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 as amended vide Government Order dated 20.7.2001 under the declaration of V th Pay Commission made by the State Government. iii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make further Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.B.Yadav, Jamwant Maurya, Neeshith Yadav, Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Arvind Srivastava, M.N.Siddiqui, P.K.Bhardwaj Rajeev Nain Singh .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Others .....Respondent(s) payment of the petitioner with regard to the differences of salary from 23.12.2006 till the date of actual payment along with the interest payable thereon." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing brief facts of the case submits that the petitioner's father who was working as Assistant Teacher in Junior High School, Mangl Vidya Mandir, Illiya, Chandauli, died in harness on 12.07.2004. He left behind six children amongst whom two children were minor. The petitioner who was eligible for appointment on compassionate appointment applied for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on 11.02.2006. He placed educational certificates mentioning that he had passed his High school examination in the year 1997 Intermediate in the year 1999 B.Sc in the year 2002 and that he had appeared in B.Ed examination in the year 2005 result of which was still awaited. The results of the B.Ed examination were declared on 22.02.2006 and the application of the petitioner for the compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, dated 11.02.2006, was considered by the Committee of Management vide its resolution dated 03.07.2006 wherein they resolved to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. As results of B.Ed had already been declared in June, 2006 certificate was handed over to the Committee of Management while his claim of appointment on compassionate ground was being considered vide resolution dated 03.07.2006. The joining letter was issued on 21.12.2006 and petitioner submitted his joining on 23.12.2006. The petitioner was given joining as untrained teacher, therefore, a request was made by the petitioner to treat him as trained teacher as he had already completed his B.Ed in June 2006 i.e. prior to his appointment as Assistant Teacher and accordingly be given salary and emoluments admissible and payable to the trained teachers. He moved a representation before the authorities concerned which has been rejected by the order impugned that to after two years of his appointment stating that he was not trained at the time of moving the application and accordingly he is not entitled for payment of salary as trained teacher. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had neither concealed the fact of pursing/appearing in B.Ed examination, results of which were awaited while moving the application on WRIA No. 42943 of 2008 2 11.02.2006, and prior to his consideration by the Committee of Management in July, 2006 he had already completed his B.Ed and the mark sheet of the same were placed before the Committee of Management at the time of consideration of his appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a judgement passed in the case of Hari Shanker and others vs. State of U.P. 2012 (9) ADJ 191 submitting that in view of relevant Government Order all those incumbents who fulfilled the requisite educational qualification, but do not have training qualification, they can move application for grant of compassionate appointment and the said incumbent would be offered appointment and shall be sent for training of B.T.C. course in the respective District Institutes of Education and Training, and after they successfully complete the training, they would be offered appointment on regular basis. He lastly submits that the case of the petitioner is at better footing than the aforesaid. 6. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid fact regarding the provision as made in the Government Order. 7. In view of aforesaid discussions, as the petitioner had already completed his training prior to his appointment, in view of the observations made in the Hari Shanker (Supra), therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary as a trained teacher. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 25.07.2008 is hereby quashed. September 22, 2025 Saurabh WRIA No. 42943 of 2008 3 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad