1. In addition to a single petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 9719 of 2001, there are altogether 43 petitioners in the rest of the cases in this batch. The petitioners are Assistant teachers in nationalised high schools. By the orders coming under challenge in these cases the petitioners are told that they were allowed the first time bound promotion much in advance of the due dates in their respective cases; that the dates from which they were given the first time bound promotion is incorrect; that each of the petitioners became entitled to the first time bound promotion from the dates which were much later than the respective dates from which the benefit of time bound promotion was given to them. Consequently, their monthly salary will be refixed and will be paid to them on the condition that they either refund the excess amounts paid to them in one lump sum or give undertaking to refund the excess amounts in certain specified instalments.

2. Before proceeding further it is necessary to state that the decision to review the first time bound promotion allowed to the petitioners, a number of years ago, was taken on the basis of the objections raised by the Audit team from the office of the Accountant General and the orders by which the pettioners salary was refixed, assigning them much later dates of promotion, were issued without giving them any notice or an opportunity of hearing. On behalf of the petitioners, therefore, these orders were assailed on these grounds as well. But on the issue in dispute, i.e., the date on which the petitioners lawfully became entitled to the first time bound promotion much arguments were made by both the sides. This Court, therefore, inds no difficulty in deciding the issue c n its merits.

3. The relevant facts are very brief and of the simplest. None of the petitioners at the time of appointment possessed the qualification in teachers training. On appointment as Assistant teacher, therefore, every petitioner was given the Graduate untrained scale of pay. Within a few years of their appointment the petitioner passed the teachers training examination whereupon each of them were given the higher graduate trained scale of pay from the respective dates of obtaining the qualification of teachers training. Then on completion of 10 years from their respective dates of initial appointments each of the petitioners were allowed the first time bound promotion and were given the scale next higher to the graduate trained scale of pay.

4. This, on the face of it, appears somewhat anomalous and contrary to the basic idea of time bound promotion which was a scheme intended to ameliorate stagnation in any one scale of pay.

5. As seen above, at the time of appointment all the petitioners were given the graduate untrained scale and on obtaining the qualification of training they were given the higher graduate trained scale. It, therefore, stands to reason that the next higher scale, under time bound promotion, should have come to the petitioners after ten years from the grant of the higher trained scale of pay and not from the respective dates of their initial appointment.

6. But on a close scrutiny and on examining the issue in the light of certain statutory provisions and some decisions/ circulars of the State Government the position appears otherwise and it appears that the first time bound promotion allowed to the petitioners, though somewhat in discord with the basic idea of time bound promotion, was in accordance with the Government decisions and circulars issued in that regard.

7. In the case of the petitioners the first and foremost thing to be borne in mind is that with the exception of the single petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 9719 of 2001 (whose case will be discussed later in this judgment) all the other 43 petitioners in the rest of the cases in this batch were appointed prior to 18.9.1972. The significance of this date lies in the fact that before 18.9.1972 a qualification in teachers training was not an