Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) The order impugned is challenged herein for giving the incremental benefit from the date of appointment but not from the date of enhancement of qualification. I do not find any infirmity under the order impugned. I have gone through the circular as shown under Memo. No. 372-Edn. (B) dated 31st July, 1981 which says that all existing secondary school teachers will be allowed increment in the revised scale of pay provided that untrained teachers will have to get themselves trained within 5 years from April, 1981 failing which their increment will be stopped till they get themselves trained. Subsequently, such circular was modified by a Memo. No. 1080G-A 3B-58/82 dated 9th August, 1983 wherein one important sentence has been incorporated as follows : "Such benefit cannot, therefore, be extended to the untrained teachers appointed after 1.4.81 ".
(2.) According to the petitioners such circular was stayed subsequently by an order of the court and the same was also incorporated in the circular being no. 1799-GA/ 3B - 5B/B2 dated 1st November, 1985.
(3.) According to me, the petitioners' case suffers from misconception of law. The part of the modified memorandum which has been subsequently stayed was in respect of the aforesaid quoted portion being discriminatory towards one section of employee holding the parallelly situated position. In the instant case, the petitioners were appointed in the year 1982-83 and the authority concerned granted the incremental benefit from the date of enhancement of qualification on the basis of the original circular. Therefore, there is misconception in respect of giving an appropriate thought with regard to existence of the circular.;