Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Supratim Maity & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY
WPA 10457 of 2021
Supratim Maity & Ors.
-Versus-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioners : Mr. Ekramul Bari
Mr. Sk. Imtaj Uddin
For the Respondent : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh
For the State : Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay
Heard on : 23.06.2021 & 25.06.2021
Judgment on : 20.07.2021
Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J .:
1. This writ application centres around a letter of the Government of
West Bengal School Education Department (Elementary
Education Branch) bearing No. 209-SE(EE)/PTTI-7/2011 dated
04.03.2013 (hereinafter referred to as the said letter). This letter
speaks about some terms and conditions on fulfilment of which
„A‟ category scale of pay may be given to the Primary School
Teachers.
2. This letter was written by the Joint Secretary School Education
Department of West Bengal to the Chairman, District Primary
School Council, Purba Medinpur. The body of the letter is
required to be reproduced:
"In inviting a reference to your letter
vide No 1926/ES dt. 09.01.2013 and without
prejudice to earlier orders of this Department in
this regard I am directed to say that in terms of
order of the National Council for Teacher
Education vide No 62-5/2008/NCTE/N&S
(Pt)/A53953 dt. 04.07.2012 and subsequent
clarifications issued by this Deptt. vide No.
389(38)-SE(EE)/PTTI-7/2011 dt. 13.08.2012
and 801(38)-SE(EE)/PTTI-7/2011dt. 02.11.2012
the following categories of Primary School
Teachers shall be treated as trained teachers
and they may be allowed „A‟ category scale of
pay:-
i) Teachers who have completed 2 years Diploma
in Elementary Education (D. El. Ed) from NCTE
recognised institutions before/after their entry in
service:
Provided in-service teachers will be allowed „A‟
category scale of pay from the date of attainment
of such qualification of D.El.Ed. However
persons already possessing D.El.Ed qualification
before their entry as a Pry. School Teacher, may
be allowed „A‟ category scale of pay at the time of
their joining the post.
ii) Teachers completed one year Diploma in
Primary Teacher Training Course and appointed
after 31.12.2005 and subsequently covered one
year Bridge Course through NCTE recognised
Institution:
Provided such category of teachers may be
allowed „A‟ category scale of pay from the date of
their joining the post or the date of attainment of
the qualification whichever is later.
iii) Teachers who have attained 1 yr./2 yrs.
Diploma in Elementary Education from State
recognised institutions and appointed as teacher
on or before 31.12.2005 shall be treated as
„trained teacher‟:
iv) Teachers who have attained degree/diploma
viz. D.Ed (Special Education) or B.Ed. (Special
Education) from RCI recognised institution and
subsequently covered a 6 months‟ course in
elementary education from NCTE recognised
institution.
v) Teachers who possessed B. Ed degree and
appointed before 01.01.2012 and subsequently
completed 6 months‟ course from NCTE
recognised institution in elementary education.
vi) Teachers appointed prior to 01.07.1996 and
also obtained B.ED/ B.T./ PGBT degree/
diploma prior to 01.07.1996 may be allowed „A‟
category scale of pay.
The above guidelines may be followed in disposal
of matters related to granting of „A‟ category scale
of pay to Primary School Teachers".
3. In the writ application the petitioners have prayed for „A‟ category
scale of pay from the date of their appointment in the year 2010
instead of the year 2014 from when they have been given the „A‟
category scale of pay.
They have also prayed for arrear of pay along with interest @
12% per annum forthwith.
4. The petitioners have alleged ambiguity in clause (ii) of the said
letter and prayed for suitable amendment of the said letter by
clarifying clause (ii) by removing the ambiguity and granting
them „A‟ category scale of pay from the year 2010.
They have also prayed for suitable amendment and/or
modification of the clause (iii) of the said letter by removing the
discrepancy.
All of the above prayers appear from prayers (b), (c) and (d)
of the writ application.
5. Said letter speaks about
(a) Who are to be treated as trained teachers and
(b) To whom "A" category scale of pay may be allowed.
6. The letter covers 6 (six) classes of Primary Teachers. First three
classes are being taken into consideration in this matter for
getting a clear picture of the classification. Petitioners have
referred to paragraphs (ii) and (iii) only (quoted above) and not
the other paragraphs.
Let us see paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) of the said letter separating
the contents in parts for understanding the meaning thereof
without any doubt.
A. Paragraph (i)
(a) Teachers who have completed 2 (two) years Diploma in
Elementary Education (hereinafter referred to as the diploma);
(b) from NCTE recognised Institutions;
(c) before or after their entry in service.
Proviso to paragraph (i) says:
(a) In service teachers who have attained the qualification while
in service (i.e. completed the diploma after entering into service)
would be granted „A‟ category scale of pay from the date of
attainment of such qualification; and
(b) Teachers who have entered in service with the diploma (i.e.
completed the diploma before entering in service) may be allowed
„A‟ Category Scale of Pay from the date of joining.
When, getting „A‟ Category scale of pay depends upon
completing the professional qualification (i.e. the Diploma) there
is no unreasonableness in the above classification.
One class of Teachers obtained the diploma after joining
service and the other class obtained the diploma before joining
service. These 2(two) classes can be distinctly found on the basis
of their attainment of qualification. Therefore there is no
discrimination and unreasonableness found in the above
classification.
B. Paragraph (ii)
(a) Teachers who have completed one year diploma in primary
teachers training course;
(b) appointed after 31.12.2005; and
(c) subsequently completed one year bridge course through
NCTE recognised institutions.
(Emphasis mine)
From the proviso of this paragraph (ii) it becomes clear that:
One class of Teachers are those who were appointed after
31.12.2005 but did not have the required qualification and the
other class is, who got appointment after 31.12.2005 and had the
required qualification (i.e. one year diploma in Primary Teachers
Training Course and bridge course from NCTE recognised
institutions).
Those Teachers who did not have the said required
qualification had to be qualified in one year bridge course and as
they had already been appointed without undergoing and
completing the bridge course, they could only complete the bridge
course during their service. Therefore, they could only get the „A‟
category scale of pay on getting proper and full training
qualification (i.e. one year Diploma in Primary Teachers
Training Course which they had while entering in service and one
year Bridge course which they did not have while entering in
service) from the date of attainment of the one year bridge course
when the required professional qualification became complete
and not before that. Therefore if they are given „A‟ Category Scale
of Pay, it can only be given from the date of attainment of the
qualification.
The teachers who joined after 31.12.2005 with the required
qualification (i.e. one year Diploma in Primary Teachers Training
Course and bridge course from NCTE recognised Institutions)
they may be allowed „A‟ Category scale of pay from the date of
joining since on the date of joining such teachers had the
required qualification; therefore in such classification also no
unreasonableness or discrimination is found.
C. Paragraph (iii)
(a) Teachers who have attained 1 year/2 years diploma in
elementary education;
(b) From the State recognised institutions;
(c) Appointed as teachers on or before 31.12.2005.
-Shall be treated as „trained teacher‟.
The paragraph (iii) is quite clear and it has no proviso like
paragraphs (i) & (ii).
7. The Petitioners have alleged in the writ application that from the
said later two classifications have been made amongst the
similarly circumstanced School Teachers under clause (ii) & (iii)
of the said letter. Such allegation is wholly incorrect.
On a reading of clause (ii) & (iii) huge difference is found
between teachers covered under clause (ii) and the teachers
covered under (iii).
Clause (ii) covers the teachers who had one year Diploma in
Primary Teacher Training Course whereas clause (iii) covers
1 year/2 years Diploma in Elementary Education.
Again, clause (ii) is for the teachers who did not obtain their
Primary Teacher Training Course from State recognised
Institutions whereas clause (iii) is for the teachers who obtained
the Diploma in Elementary Education from State recognised
Institutions.
Therefore, on the basis of the qualifications i.e. "Primary
Teacher Training Course" and "1 year/2 years Diploma in
Elementary Education" and from the view point of the nature of
the institutions (non-government institutions vis-a-vis state
recognized institutions) from where they obtained their
professional qualification, intelligible differentia in making the
classification is found.
8. Therefore, it is not that similarly circumstanced persons have
been classified unreasonably without any basis. On the basis of
qualification and on the basis of character of the Institutions the
distinctions between two classes of teachers are clear.
9. The expression "Primary School Teacher" outwardly and
superficially shows a class i.e. "Teacher" but when we delve into
the matter a little deeper we would see that differences of
qualifications and differences in the nature of the Institutions
from where professional qualifications were obtained do exist
amongst the Primary School Teachers. While granting „A‟ category
scale of pay when the State has gone deeper from the surface on
reasonable ground of the superficial class namely "teacher" and
while considering the difference of qualification, subsequent
attainment of required professional qualification by way of a
bridge course and the date of joining and date of attaining the
qualification, the State has made no mistake in classifying the
Primary School Teachers in different categories. Such
classification is perfectly justified and based on perceivable facts
from which intelligible differentia is evident. Such classification
passes the test of intelligible differentia. Objective (sought to be
achieved by making such classification) is deciding the date of
attaining required qualification from when „A‟ category scale of
pay can be given to different classes of teachers having
differences in training qualification and natures of institutions
from where the teachers obtained their qualifications. Some
Teachers can be given the „A‟ category scale of pay on the basis of
their qualification from the date of their joining; some can be
given from the date of attainment of the required qualification.
Therefore the allegation of unreasonable classification as appears
from paragraph 6, paragraph 10 and paragraph 14 of the writ
application does not have any basis.
10. In paragraph 7 of the writ application the petitioner has referred
appointment letter of a person making certain allegations against
the said person alleging that he got his appointment in the year
2006 with one year Primary Teachers Training course but was
allowed „A‟ category scale of pay from the date of appointment.
The appointment letter given to that person appears from
annexure P-5 (at page 64) of the writ application. But neither the
person named in annexure P-5 has been made a party
respondent in the writ application nor does it appear from the
said annexure that the said person had only one(1) year PTTE
qualification as alleged. Therefore such allegation is wholly
irresponsible. By filing a writ application the petitioners do not
get any right to say anything and everything against a person
without making him a party and without disclosing the necessary
particulars on the basis of which such allegations are made.
Such practice is seriously deprecated by this court.
11. The petitioners have alleged against the proviso stating that it
has created anomaly, it has travelled beyond the main provision
and it is ambiguous. Such allegations are found in paragraphs
11, 12 and 13 of the writ application. Let us see what could be
the purposes of a proviso.
"A proviso may serve four different purposes:
(1) It may qualify or except certain provisions
from the main enactment;
(2) It may entirely change the very concept of the
intendment of the enactment by insisting on certain
mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to
make the enactment workable;
(3) It may be so embedded in the Act itself as to
become an integral part of the enactment and thus
acquire the tenor and colour of the substantive
enactment itself; and
(4) It may be used merely to act as an optional
addenda to the enactment with the sole object of
explaining the real intendment of the statutory
provision".
(1985) 1 SCC 591 (S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R.
Pattabiraman).
The proviso in paragraph (ii) of the said letter qualifies the
main statement made in said paragraph. The main statement in
paragraph (ii) says who are covered for the „A‟ category scale of
pay and the proviso qualifies the coverage by laying down the
starting point of group „A‟ scale of pay. Some teachers (as has
been discussed above) would get that scale from the date of
joining and some teachers would get the scale from the date of
attainment of the qualification. Therefore the allegations that the
proviso creates anomaly, it travels beyond the main provision, it
is ambiguous, are all baseless and frivolous and there is no
substance in such allegations in respect of the proviso in
paragraph (ii) of the said letter. The petitioner has also alleged an
arbitrary cut off date being 31st December 2005. But the
petitioner has not made any submission from the bear or has not
made any pleadings in the writ application as to why the cut off
date is arbitrary. A cut off date can be provided by an executive
order. However this point has not been pressed by the
petitioners.
12. For the reason as aforesaid I do not find any merit in the writ
application and the same is dismissed, however without any
order as to costs.
(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J)
