Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66493 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15756 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ramprit Rajbhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidya Dhar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Vidya Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Brijesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for State. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as untrained Assistant Teacher at the time when concerned school was accorded grant-in-aid and he was paid salary of an untrained teacher. 3. It is not disputed that a scheme was floated by State that untrained working teachers may pass a training course before 31.03.2019 and accordingly, petitioner has undergone a two years’ training course being D.El.Ed. (Diploma in Elementary Education) from National Institute of Open Schooling in the Session 2017-2019 and he has passed it and marksheet and certificate were issued on 09.03.2020. 4. After obtaining marksheet and certificate of said course, petitioner approached concerned Authorities for payment of salary of a trained teacher, however, when State-respondents have not considered his application, he approached this Court by way of filing a Writ A No. 7199/2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2021, with an observation that petitioner will file a fresh representation along with copy of said order, the same shall be decided by State-respondents. 4. In terms of above referred order, concerned State- respondents have passed an order dated 28.01.2022 whereby on basis of said certificate, an order was passed to grant petitioner pay-scale of a trained teacher. 5. Aforesaid order dated 28.01.2022 was reviewed by Director of Education on a ground that an order was passed in a litigation pending before Patna High Court, therefore, the order to grant trained pay-scale was withdrawn that the certificate of D.El.Ed. was not considered as a training course as well as a reference was taken of a communication dated 09.05.2023 of Secretary, Examination Regulatory Board Authority, U.P. that since D.El.Ed. was a course of 18 months, same cannot be considered as a training course. 6. Aforesaid order dated 28.08.2023 is impugned in this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that much water has flown thereafter that Supreme Court in Jaiveer Singh and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 1584 has held that 18 months’ diploma conducted by N.I.O.S. between the period 2017 and 2019 was equivalent to 2 years’ diploma and said that it cannot continue thereafter since it was only for special purpose. 8. In counter affidavit filed by State, in paragraph 9, Jaiveer Singh (supra) has been essentially accepted, however, an objection is raised that since diploma certificate of petitioner is dated 09.03.2020 i.e. after cut- off date 31.03.2019, therefore, said certificate cannot be accepted sufficient for purpose to grant trained pay-scale. 9. I have considered above submissions and perused the records. 10. It appears that reasons assigned in aforesaid paragraph is not only vague but illegal also since it can be disputed that petitioner has undergone 18 months’ training course of D.El.Ed. for Session 2017-2019, therefore, in case if the certificate is issued later on, it will not adversely affect the petitioner as the petitioner has concluded his training course well before cut-off date. 11. In aforesaid circumstances, Court also takes note of paragraph 30 of Jaiveer (supra) wherein judgment of Patna High Court was found faulted and for reference, said paragraph is quoted below :- “45. In the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has relied on the judgments of the High Court of Patna in the case of Sanjay Kumar Yadav (supra) and High Court of Tripura in the case of Sri Raju Nama (supra). It is to be noted that, in the judgment of the High Court of Patna, though a reference has been made to the communication addressed by NCTE to the Additional Chief Secretary, Bihar, it brushed aside the said communication on the ground that it is nowhere mentioned that the said course cannot be treated at par with the 2 years training course. In the absence of a specific order of NCTE granting equivalence to the 18 months course with the 2 years course, in our view, the High Court has totally erred in finding that since the said communication does not mention non- equivalence, it would be deemed to be equivalent.” 12. In view of above, since legal impediment as mentioned in impugned order has now been removed, therefore, order is required to be revisit. 13. Accordingly, impugned order dated 28.08.2023 is set aside and matter is remitted back to concerned respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and on basis of above referred observations within 8 weeks from today. 14. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad