Summary
An untrained primary teacher claimed the pay scale of trained matric teachers on the strength of his higher academic qualification and a concession made by State counsel. The Court held that academic attainment did not substitute for teacher training and that a concession contrary to statutory pay rules did not bind the State. It rejected the teacher’s claim while permitting withdrawal of the deposited litigation expenses.
Issues
- Whether a higher academic qualification entitled an untrained teacher to the trained-teacher pay scale.
- Whether State counsel’s contrary concession bound the State.
Provisions considered
- Clause 6, read with corrigendum dated 27 August 1992, Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (Amendment) Rules, 1990The distinct pay scales for untrained intermediate teachers and trained matric teachers defeated the claim based solely on higher academic qualification. (¶¶ 3, 4, 11, 12)
Held
- Counsel’s concession that intermediate-qualified teachers were entitled to the trained matric scale was a concession of law contrary to statutory rules. There could be no estoppel against law, and the concession did not bind the State. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- A trained matric teacher must have undergone training for teaching. Higher academic qualifications alone did not make the respondent trained. Classification for pay based on training or educational qualification was valid; equal pay principles could not mechanically erase that distinction. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal’s order as affirmed by the High Court was set aside and the respondent’s original application dismissed. He was permitted to withdraw Rs.25,000 deposited with the Registry towards litigation expenses.