Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 102 (CAL)

Partha Pratim De v. State of West Bengal

2025-01-17

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24 Parganas [herein after referred to as “DI”], dated July 6, 2020, in the present case. By dint of the same, the said DI/respondent No.3 has declined the petitioner’s prayer for grant of higher pay scale, pursuant to his Master’s Degree (M.A. in English) qualification. 2. The reasons shown by the respondent No.3/DI in the said impugned order, to reject the petitioner’s prayer for grant of higher pay scale is the alleged violation of the provisions of the Notification No.548-SE(S) dated June 24, 1997 [herein after referred to as “No. 548”], and also the provisions contained in the Government Notification No.155-SE(B) dated July 13, 1999 [herein after referred to as “No.155”] . 3. The respondent No. 3 has recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions in the Government Notification No. 548, in as much as he has not taken any prior permission from the respondent No. 3, through the managing committee of the school, before enrolment and appearing in the examinations. 4. Secondly, it has further been stated that as per Government Notification No.155, a teacher appointed through the West Bengal School Service Commission shall be entitled to a scale of pay as per his or her qualification mentioned by the West Bengal School Service Commission. Since the present petitioner has been appointed in the category of honors graduate teacher with B.Ed., recommended by the School Service Commission, he would not therefore be entitled for grant of any pay scale other than that meant for honors graduate category of teachers. 5. For the said two reasons, the respondent No. 3/DI, by dint of the impugned order dated July 6, 2020, has turned down the petitioner’s prayer for grant of higher pay scale. 6. It appears from record that the writ petitioner was appointed in the post of Assistant Teacher in English in the respondent school with the qualification of honors graduate degree and B.Ed., as per recommendation of the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission (Southern Region). His service was approved at a subsequent date. 7. The petitioner had applied before the Secretary, Managing Committee of the school on September 30, 2002, for grant of permission to him to take admission in Master’s Degree Course in English, through correspondence course. 8. His service was approved at a subsequent date. 7. The petitioner had applied before the Secretary, Managing Committee of the school on September 30, 2002, for grant of permission to him to take admission in Master’s Degree Course in English, through correspondence course. 8. The school managing committee, in its meeting dated May 19, 2003, permitted the petitioner for pursuing the said course. However, admittedly, on May 19, 2003, the petitioner had got himself enrolled for the Master’s Degree Course, through correspondence course with Burdwan University. 9. The last of his examination was October 11, 2004, after which the petitioner has prayed for grant of higher pay scale to him, meant for post-graduate teachers, in terms of his upgrading the qualification. The said prayer of the petitioner has been rejected twice by the respondent No. 3/DI, the impugned order being the second round of rejection of the prayer of the petitioner, as above. 10. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that so far as the applicability of the G.O. No. 548 in case of the petitioner is concerned, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the judgment of Akhtar Hossain Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2013(2) CHN (Cal) 632 has already held that the same would not bare any relevance regarding grant of benefit to the incumbent for improving the academic qualification for correspondence course. He would say that the ratio of the said decision is applicable in the case of the present petitioner also. 11. So far as the applicability of the provisions under Government Notification No.155 in the case of the present petitioner is concerned, according to the learned advocate, the issue has been finally settled, by dint of the Hon’ble Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Utpal Kanti Karan Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1274. 12. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1274. 12. By referring to the said judgment, learned advocate for the petitioner has stated that the Court has accepted that the subsequent Government Orders No.735-SE(S)/SP/132/2002 dated June 3, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “No.735”] and No.1334-SE(S) dated November 3, 2004 [hereinafter referred to as “No.1334”], has amended the said G.O. No.155 to the effect to incorporate as eligible for grant of higher pay scale, the teachers, who have improved or will improve qualification after joining the post with due permission from the authority competent to grant such permission. He would urge that the said Government Notifications No. 735 and 1334 should apply in the case of the writ petitioner. He would further say with reference to the said judgment, that enhancement of pay in accordance with the requisite qualification would be dependent upon the relevant Rules operating at the time of acquiring of the higher qualification. He says that at the time of acquiring higher qualification by the writ petitioner, he should be considered as governed under ROPA-1998, according to which upon enhancing the qualification, the petitioner would be entitled for grant of higher pay scale. 13. Mr. Das, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that none of these aspects have been considered by the concerned respondent, while passing the impugned order dated July 6, 2020, and thus, the said order would not be sustainable in the eye of law. He says that the writ petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. 14. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate is representing the State in this case. He is of strong opinion that the petitioner has flouted the conditions, enumerated in the Notification No. 548, in so far as the petitioner has not taken any prior permission before enrolling himself in the Master’s Degree course. He would refer to the other documents in the writ petition to submit that the petitioner has not obtained any prior permission before enrolling himself in the Master’s Degree Course, through correspondence course. 15. Mr. He would refer to the other documents in the writ petition to submit that the petitioner has not obtained any prior permission before enrolling himself in the Master’s Degree Course, through correspondence course. 15. Mr. Ghosh would further say that the Notification Nos.735 or 1334 could not entirely negate the provisions under notification No.155, in so far as the same is not amended, the relevant portion of notification No.155, that a person appointed through the School Service Commission would be eligible for grant of pay scale as recommended by the School Service Commission. 16. For the two reasons as above, according to Mr. Ghosh, the petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected by the said respondent, by dint of the impugned order dated July 6, 2020. 17. It appears that the petitioner, who was appointed in the respondent school on April 13, 2001, as an honors graduate teacher and as per recommendation of the West Bengal Regional School (Southern Region), would enhance his qualification to the Master’s Degree through correspondence course. 18. Since thereafter, he has prayed for grant of higher pay scale. However, the respondent No. 3 has, time and again, raised objections, for the reasons that the petitioner has not complied with the provisions under the Government Notifications No. 548 as well as 155. 19. Notification No.548 provides that teachers shall have to take prior permission from the District Inspector of Schools (SE), through the managing committee, if they like to enroll themselves and to appear for the examination conducted through correspondence course from the affiliated Universities for pursuing higher studies. The managing committee of the concerned school shall send such cases to the D.I. for approval along with their comments including the relevance of the subject of higher studies. 20. It appears from record that the petitioner having applied before the school managing committee, by dint of the letter dated September 30, 2002, for grant of prior permission, has thereafter enrolled himself in the correspondence course in the Master’s Degree Course on May 19, 2003. 21. It further appears that after a period of eight months, the school managing committee has taken up the prayer of the petitioner and granted the same. However, in the meantime, the petitioner has enrolled himself for the course. 22. 21. It further appears that after a period of eight months, the school managing committee has taken up the prayer of the petitioner and granted the same. However, in the meantime, the petitioner has enrolled himself for the course. 22. So far as the petitioner is concerned, his responsibility in terms of G.O. No.548 appears to have been exhausted after his applying for the prior permission, before the managing committee. Petitioner could not have any control over the course of action by the school managing committee or by the D.I. in the matter of complying with the terms and conditions as prescribed under G.O. No.548. 23. Furthermore, the Court is respectfully observing the finding of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Akhter Hossain Chowdhury (supra), which is as follows:- “The aforesaid circular relates to recognition of correspondence courses conducted by the different Universities of India and not relating to grant of any benefit for improving the academic qualification through correspondence course”. 24. Furthermore, in the aforesaid circular, it has been mentioned that the Managing Committee of the school concerned, while sending its recommendation for approval, should also mention the relevance of the subject of higher studies and also whether such higher studies would affect the duties of the teacher in the school. In the present case, it has never been alleged that the teacher concerned conducted the higher studies through correspondence course affecting the duties in the school. The teacher concerned has improved his qualification in Mathematics subject which is also a relevant subject in the said school. 25. It is worth noting that in the present case, the period of study of the petitioner has not adversely affected the functioning of the petitioner in the school. On the contrary, the school managing committee has permitted the petitioner for undergoing higher study as well as recommended for grant of higher pay scale to him. 26. On perusal of the Notification Nos.735 as well as 1334, the Court finds that by amending G.O. No.155, the same has provided for eligibility of a teacher for grant of higher pay scale in case, he improves qualification after joining the course with due permission from the authority. 26. On perusal of the Notification Nos.735 as well as 1334, the Court finds that by amending G.O. No.155, the same has provided for eligibility of a teacher for grant of higher pay scale in case, he improves qualification after joining the course with due permission from the authority. It has already been discussed and found in this judgment, that the responsibility as regards compliance to obtain prior permission from the competent authority, in case of the petitioner is exhausted upon his applying for permission in due course. 27. So far as compliance with the conditions of prior permission as per G.O. Nos. 548 or 735 or 1334 is concerned, in the present case, the petitioner having duly applied for prior permission before the school authority, which is the competent authority and proper channel as per the Rules, has duly complied with the said Rules. 28. The Court is not oblivious of the judgment of this Court in the case of Partha Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2004 (2) CLJ (Cal) 493, by dint of which the Court has earlier set aside the Government Notification No.155. 29. Be that as it may, in view of the provisions under Notification Nos.735 and 1334, the Court finds that the petitioner would be eligible for grant of higher pay scale upon his completing higher degree course. 30. The Court is also in due observance of finding of the Hon’ble Larger Bench that the eligibility of the petitioner would depend on the rules to govern at the relevant point of time, which, in this case of the petitioner under ROPA-1998. 31. The Court finds that according to Clause 12(3) thereof, which provides as follows:- 32. The eligibility of the petitioner would also be undeniable as to grant of higher pay scale to him. Let the relevant rules be quoted:- “(12). Career Advancement Scheme and Related Issues (1) -******** (2) -******** (3) All teachers, including physical education teachers and librarians of secondary schools who have improved/will improve their qualifications who were appointed with higher qualification in the subjects or group relevant to their teaching/appointment shall get higher scale of pay appropriate to their qualifications with effect from the 1st January, 1996 or the date of improving qualifications whichever is later” 33. On the discussions as above, it is found that the DI/respondent No. 3 in the impugned order dated July 6, 2020, has found his decision on erroneous consideration of the provisions of law and the Government Notifications thereby unreasonably and illegally denying the petitioner’s prayer for grant of higher pay scale. In such view of the fact, the Court finds it proper to set aside the impugned order of the respondent No. 3/ DI dated July 6, 2020. 34. Hence, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions:- i) The impugned order dated July 6, 2020, is set aside. ii) The respondent No. 3/DI shall immediately allow and grant higher pay scale to the petitioner meant for the post graduate teachers with effect from the date following the last date of his final examination in the M.Sc. examination and refixation of his pay shall be granted with immediate effect; iii) The respondent No. 3/DI shall forth with release the arrear salary, as stands due and outstanding to the petitioner; iv) The entire exercise as above, should be concluded by the respondent no.3/DI, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order. 35. The writ petition is disposed of. 36. Since no affidavit has been called for, allegations made in the writ petition, shall be deemed to have not admitted by the respondents. 37. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.