Benefits under G.O.Ms.No.77 apply prospectively and exclude training completed before its issuance.

The respondents, Secondary Grade Teachers, had undergone the relevant training while pursuing B.Ed. correspondence courses before the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.77, School Education Department, dated 24.04.2017. The Government Order permitted qualifying teachers to undergo Learning and Teaching training at their schools, subject to university permission, and treated the training period as service under Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the Basic Rules.

The respondents obtained orders in their writ petitions, which the State challenged in these appeals.

Whether the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 24.04.2017, applies retrospectively to teachers who completed the training before the Government Order was issued.

Whether the writ court’s orders granting the respondents relief could stand despite their training having taken place before the Government Order.

The Court applied G.O.Ms.No.77, which provides that the specified training period may be treated as service for eligible Secondary Grade Teachers, in accordance with Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the Basic Rules.

The Court treated the Government Order as a policy decision effective from its date of issuance and held that, absent provision for retrospective operation, its benefit could not be extended to training completed before 24.04.2017.

The respondents had completed their training before G.O.Ms.No.77 was issued.

The Court accepted the State’s submission that the Government Order contained no provision for retrospective application and concluded that extending the benefit to earlier training would improperly give the policy retrospective effect. It therefore held that the Order operated prospectively from 24.04.2017 and did not benefit teachers who had completed training before that date.

It set aside the orders in W.P. Nos. 18529 and 18528 of 2020 and allowed both writ appeals, with no order as to costs.