https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296705 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. en-us Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Aug 2021 08:33:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296705 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296705