Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 201 (CAL)

Maleka Khatun v. State of West Bengal

2014-03-10

DEBASISH KAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Debasish Kar Gupta, J. 1. Let affidavit-of-service filed be kept with the record. 2. This writ application is filed by the petitioner assailing an order passed by the respondent no. 3 under Memo No. 19/6-C, dated January 21, 2014. By virtue of the impugned order, the respondent no. 3 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for extending the benefit of Post Graduate scale of pay in his favour in connection with his service as an Assistant Teacher of Kushaberia High School, District - Murshidabad. 3. According to the petitioner, his appointment in the post of an Assistant Teacher of the school under reference was approved by the respondent no. 3 as an Assistant Teacher with B.A. qualification with effect from August 10, 2001. The prayer of the petitioner for obtaining prior permission for pursuing study in M.A. course was forwarded by the school concerned to the respondent no. 3 under Memo No. L/1/05, dated January 05, 2005 (at page 28 of this writ application).According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 sat tight over the matter. The petitioner obtained the above qualification in the year 2004 from the University of Calcutta. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the following grounds:- (i) No prior permission was obtained by the petitioner for enrolment of his name for pursuing study in Master degree course. (ii) The claim of the petitioner was not tenable in accordance with the provisions of Memorandum No. 155-SE(S), dated July 13, 1999. (iii) The approved staff pattern of the school concern did not permit the authority to extend the above benefit in favour of the petitioner. 5. The above grounds mentioned herein above have already been decided in the matter of Nibir Kumar Som v. State of West Bengal & Others, reported in (2013) 3 WBLR (Cal) 856 and the relevant portions of the above decision are set out below:- "4. 5. The above grounds mentioned herein above have already been decided in the matter of Nibir Kumar Som v. State of West Bengal & Others, reported in (2013) 3 WBLR (Cal) 856 and the relevant portions of the above decision are set out below:- "4. The first ground for rejection has already been settled by a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated October 16, 2012 delivered in the matter of Asim Kumar Adgiri v. State of West Bengal & Others (In re: MAT No. 1459 of 2012 with CAN No. 8487 of 2012) and the relevant portions of the above decision are set out below:- "The District Inspector of Schools concerned in spite of receipt of the aforesaid communication did not refuse the prayer made on behalf of the appellant/petitioner or the school authorities for allowing the said appellant to undergo post-graduate studies in Mathematics. The appellant/petitioner admittedly completed M.Sc. Course in Mathematics from Netaji Subhas Open University and, thereafter, claimed the benefit of higher scale of pay in view of improving the academic qualification. The aforesaid objection raised on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools for not seeking prior permission in terms of Para 3 of the Circular dated 27th November, 2007 is not factually correct since the appellant/petitioner through the managing committee has submitted an application seeking permission from the said District Inspector of Schools and the managing committee specially forwarded such application together with the resolution passed by the managing Committee of the said school in this regard. The said District Inspector of Schools did not refuse the prior permission to the appellant herein for undergoing the higher studies." 5. It is revealed from the materials on record that the petitioner approached the School Authority for obtaining prior permission and the above prayer was forwarded to the respondent no. 3 with a forwarding letter dated October 24, 2008 (at page 28 of this writ application), therefore, first ground is not sustainable in law. 6. So far as the second ground is concerned I find that the Departmental Circular No. 670-SE(S) dated September 04, 1998 deals with the staff pattern. 3 with a forwarding letter dated October 24, 2008 (at page 28 of this writ application), therefore, first ground is not sustainable in law. 6. So far as the second ground is concerned I find that the Departmental Circular No. 670-SE(S) dated September 04, 1998 deals with the staff pattern. The above staff pattern was introduces for the purpose of equitable distribution of the available post so as to enable pass degree holders to also compete for appointment as Assistant Teacher, Once a teacher with pass degree is appointed, the object for which such Government Orders were introduced is sub-served. The above Government Order did not lay down any restriction on a teacher from enhancing his educational qualification. It has to be remembered that enhancing of educational qualification by a teacher serves two fold purposes:- (i) The likelihood of hike in pay in the absence of available channel of promotion a teacher encourages to enhance his qualification and thereby the prospect of stagnation in service is averted; (ii) To some extent at least the students to whom lessons are imparted are benefited by the knowledge the teacher has derived after successfully obtaining the Master's Degree. In view of the above the above staff pattern had no bearing on enhancing scale of pay of the petitioner. 7. The third ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner was the provisions of G.O. 593-SE(B) dated November 27, 2007. But the petitioner obtained Master degree in History in the year 2004 at the material point of time the above Government Order was not in existence, it has not retrospective effect. Therefore the above ground cannot be sustained in law. 8. In view of the above the impugned order is quashed and set aside." 6. Since no other ground is available in the impugned order, the petitioner is entitled to get the above benefit. 7. In view of the above, the grounds shown by the respondent no. 3 for rejecting the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. As a result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. 8. I direct the respondent no. 3 to extend the benefit of Post Graduate scale of pay in favour of the petitioner within three months from the date of communication of this order. 9. This writ application is, thus, disposed of. 10. However, there will be no order as to costs. 8. I direct the respondent no. 3 to extend the benefit of Post Graduate scale of pay in favour of the petitioner within three months from the date of communication of this order. 9. This writ application is, thus, disposed of. 10. However, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy be supplied to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.