Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 766 (CAL)

Pritama Mandal v. State of West Bengal

2024-04-09

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 1. The writ petitioner is the teacher of Marbedia High School. She is aggrieved with the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Purulia dated 27.06.2017, refusing her the benefit of higher scale of pay, pursuant to the higher qualification obtained by her. 2. Mr. Lakshminath Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the writ petitioner refers to the G.O. No. 593-SE (B) dated 27.11.2007, to submit that the same would not be applicable in case of his client, in so far as the writ petitioner had already enrolled for M.A. course, before joining in the service. Application of provisions of Government Order dated 27.06.2017, in case of his client is erroneous, he says. 3. Therefore, according to him, rejection of the prayer of the writ petitioner for higher grade of scale would be unreasonable, illegal and unsustainable. 4. Mr. Suman Dey, learned counsel is representing the State. He has candidly submitted that the law in this regard has already been settled by this Court. 5. For the rest, he has left the matter at the discretion of the Court. 6. The factual background is required to be stated, in a nutshell. The petitioner joined in service on 04.07. 2011, as a Honours/Post Graduate category candidate. 7. Before that, in 2010, she has qualified in Part I examinations of the M.A. degree course. She completed her Part-II examination in M.A. degree course on 18.07.2012, that is, after joining in the service and thereafter, submitted her prayer for enhancement of pay scale, before the appropriate authority on the basis of the higher qualification obtained. 8. She had faced sufficient drudgery and delay by the respondent authority in disposing of her prayer as above, for which she sought for intervention of this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. No. 3087 (W) of 2017. 9. Be that as it may, final concomitant is the impugned order dated 27.06.2017 of the respondent authority, in which the respondent authority records its finding that as the writ petitioner did not seek prior permission to obtain higher qualification, pursuant to G.O. No. 593-SE (B) dated 27.11.2007, she would not be entitled to any higher scale of pay. 10. 9. Be that as it may, final concomitant is the impugned order dated 27.06.2017 of the respondent authority, in which the respondent authority records its finding that as the writ petitioner did not seek prior permission to obtain higher qualification, pursuant to G.O. No. 593-SE (B) dated 27.11.2007, she would not be entitled to any higher scale of pay. 10. Let the relevant provision of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005, be quoted, as herein below, that is section 14 (3) thereof [now amended vide West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) (Amendment) Act, 2016): "(14) Scale of pay etc. of teacher: *** *** *** *** *** (3) Every teacher of a school shall, if appointed in the Honours' Graduate or Post Graduate teacher category, be entitled to draw pay of Post-graduate teacher category, upon acquiring Post-graduate degree, in the manner as may be specified by order." 11. Therefore, the law postulated for grant of post graduate scale of pay to a teacher who was appointed as an honours' graduate candidate, upon his acquiring post-graduate degree. The writ petitioner joined in service on 04.07.2011. By that time, the G.O.No. 593-SE (B) dated 27.11.2007 was promulgated and in vogue. The mode for grant of higher scale of pay to a teacher, upon improving his qualification, has been provided there under, in the following words: “1. All the teachers teaching in different State Aided Schools will have to take prior permission from the Managing Committee/Ad hoc Committee/Administrator as the case may be to enrol themselves and to appear for any examination for enhancement of educational qualification. The Managing Committee being Competent Authority in such cases will take a decision in its next meeting and convey its decision to the teacher concerned immediately. A copy of the decision of the Managing Committee will be forwarded to the office of the Dl of Schools (SE) of the concerned district. 2. The applicant-teacher thereafter, will, if necessary, apply for Leave/Special Leave/ Study Leave as the case may be (along with the resolution of Managing Committee), to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (which is the Competent Authority in this case) through the Managing Committee of the School. 3. The teacher is required to seek prior permission of concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) (only when he/she wants to claim additional increment/higher scale of pay etc. 3. The teacher is required to seek prior permission of concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) (only when he/she wants to claim additional increment/higher scale of pay etc. for obtaining such higher qualification) through the Managing Committee of the School.” 12. On bare perusal of the same it appears that according to clause (1) of the same, prior permission of the managing committee would be necessary to be enrolled in any course and to appear for any examination for enhancement of educational qualification. Noticeable here is that, on two different occasions, permission is required to be sought for, that is firstly for enrolment and thereafter for appearing in any examination. In writ petitioner's case, she was enrolled in MA Degree course in the year 2008 and successfully completed Part-I examination thereof, in the year 2010. In the mid-way of her MA course, that is on 04.07.2011, she joined in service, as an honours' graduate candidate. As discussed earlier, Section 14(3) of the Act of 2005, enabled her to compete in examinations and join in the post, as an honours graduate candidate. Section 14(3) of the said Act also would enable her to draw post graduate scale of pay upon acquiring post-graduate degree. However, her enrolment in the course, prior to her joining in service, would dispense her with the first requirement under clause (1) of the Order dated 27.11.2007, that is requirement of taking prior permission before enrolment. The two requirements under clause (1) of the G.O.No. 593-SE(B) dated 27.11.2007, may be imperative for a teacher, who intends to enrol for higher degree, after joining in service, but not for the one, like the present writ petitioner, who has already enrolled in the course, prior to joining in the service. This is so, for the reason that the statute has already provided his entitlement to acquire a post graduate degree, by virtue of the provision under Section 14(3) of the Act of 2005. 13. As such, the petitioner would be required to obtain prior permission before her examination, in terms of the second requirement postulated under clause (1) of the Order dated 27.11.2007. Record reveals that the petitioner has duly obtained the same vide an application dated 04.11.2011 and was granted study leave from 27.12.2011 to 15.01.2012. 14. 13. As such, the petitioner would be required to obtain prior permission before her examination, in terms of the second requirement postulated under clause (1) of the Order dated 27.11.2007. Record reveals that the petitioner has duly obtained the same vide an application dated 04.11.2011 and was granted study leave from 27.12.2011 to 15.01.2012. 14. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Purulia, in his order dated 27.06.2017 (impugned order), has held that the school authority has never transmitted the matter before the said authority (in terms of clause(3) of the Government Order dated 27.11.2007), seeking prior permission for the writ petitioner, to appear in MA Part-II examinations. This would not, however preclude the said respondent No.3, to even grant permission ex-post facto, to the writ petitioner, in view of her statutory entitlement and the permission already granted by the school managing committee. As a matter of fact, the writ petitioner's case does not fall under any of the disabling or prohibiting clauses, in the said Government Order dated 27.11.2007. 15. So far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner joined in service on 04.07.2011. Even before joining she enrolled for MA degree course and qualified in Part-1 examinations thereof, in 2010. As discussed earlier, the question for the writ petitioner obtaining prior permission of the respondent authority, before such enrolment, therefore does not arise. She has however completed the same after joining in service. Thus she has become similarly placed as the other teachers having higher qualification of MA Degree, either having been appointed that way or having improved their qualification subsequent to joining. Also that, according to the applicable rules the writ petitioner has become eligible for the higher scale of pay, upon obtaining MA Degree. By virtue of impugned order dated 27.06.2017, the respondent authority has not only rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner but also enforced dissimilar treatment amongst the equals, without any reasonable basis. Even in accordance with the said government order dated 27.11.2007, as has been relied on by the respondent authorities in refuting the writ petitioner's prayer, there would not have been any scope for the writ petitioner to seek any prior permission, before enrolment in the MA Degree course, reason being that the writ petitioner has joined in service much after the date of enrolment and even after qualifying in the Part-I examinations. Thus, the question of the writ petitioner to take prior permission before enrolment did not arise. This however, should not justify the purported action of the respondent authority not to recognise the higher qualification of the writ petitioner, which as a matter of fact, is her statutory entitlement. In the pursuit of self-improvement a person endeavours to equip himself with better qualification, which is most welcome for any human being, not to speak of a person who is pursuing the profession of a teacher. It is anybody's guess that a better qualified person is better suited to impart education to others. Allowing enhanced pay scale to a better qualified teacher is only a mode of recognising his/her better qualities. As a matter of fact, refusing recognition of higher qualification of the writ petitioner has principally been based on the grounds, technical in nature. It is a trait that not the technicalities but justice should prevail. In this case, this Court finds that justice would be sub served, if the higher grade of pay scale is allowed to the writ petitioner, on the basis of her obtaining higher qualification. 16. Accordingly, the findings and decision of the respondent authority in the impugned order dated 27.06.2017 appears to be improper, unjust and illegal, being done upon erroneous consideration of the applicable law, rules and procedure. 17. The same is not maintainable. 18. Hence, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the following directions:- (i). The impugned order dated 27.06.2017 is set aside. (ii). The writ petitioner since qualifies in terms of the existing rules to obtain higher scale of pay, after obtaining higher qualification, the respondent no. 6/District Inspector of Schools (SE), Purba Medinipur is directed to immediately allow her the higher scale of pay pursuant to her higher qualification, with effect from the date of her obtaining of such higher qualification i.e., 18.07.2012. (iii). Necessary steps be immediately taken for fixation of scale of pay of the writ petitioner. 19. The entire exercise as above shall be concluded within a maximum period of seven days from the date of communication of this order. 20. The writ petition being WPA 26587 of 2017 is disposed of. 21. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court upon compliance all legal formalities.