Training-based pay-scale classification upheld; counsel's concession could not override statutory rules or confer the higher scale.

The Court held that a pay-scale classification distinguishing trained matric teachers from untrained teachers was valid because the decisive criterion was possession of teaching training, not academic qualification alone. A primary school teacher with intermediate qualification but without the required training therefore could not claim the higher scale reserved for trained matric teachers. The Court further held that a concession by State counsel contrary to the statutory rules could not bind the State, because there is no estoppel against law and a lawyer's statement on a question of law cannot confer a benefit inconsistent with the governing rules. The higher pay scale claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent, appointed as a primary school teacher with intermediate qualification but without the training required for a trained matric teacher, was entitled to the pay scale prescribed for trained matric teachers, and whether a concession by State counsel contrary to the statutory rules could bind the State.

Analysis: The pay structure under the revised pay rules and the corrigendum created distinct categories for trained matric teachers and untrained teachers. The decisive distinction was not merely higher academic qualification, but the possession of training for teaching. A concession contrary to the statutory rules could not override the legal position, because there can be no estoppel against law. A lawyer's statement on a question of law cannot confer a benefit inconsistent with the governing rules. The classification based on training and qualification was held to be valid, and the respondent did not fall within the category for the higher scale meant for trained matric teachers.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to the pay scale meant for trained matric teachers, and the concession before the Tribunal did not bind the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal and the High Court erred in granting the higher pay scale, and the respondent's claim to that scale was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A concession by counsel that is contrary to statutory rules does not bind the State, and a pay-scale classification based on training and educational qualification is legally valid.

---