Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sagar Kumar Das vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 February, 2022
72 23.02.2022
Ct.15
W.P.A. 18815 of 2016
rkd
(Through Video Conference)
Sagar Kumar Das
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. N. I. Khan,
Mr. Amlan Kumar Mukherjee
....for the petitioner.
Mr. Biswajit De,
Ms. Rajlakshmi Ghatak
....for the State.
Writ petition pertains to sanction of higher
scale of pay in favour of the petitioner who was
appointed on 16th October, 2007 as an assistant
teacher in Science group having qualification of
B.Sc. (pass) on the recommendation of the School
Service Commission issued vide memo dated 27th
September, 2007. It also appears from the said
recommendation memo dated 27th September,
2007 that the petitioner was recommended for
appointment as assistant teacher having
qualification of Pure Science (pass). Petitioner made
a representation to the District Inspector of Schools
(S.E.), Paschim Medinipur, being the respondent
no.3 for sanction of higher scale of pay. The
respondent no.3 in his turn spurned the prayer of
the petitioner for sanction of honours
graduate/postgraduate scale of pay by issuing
memo no.2960/S dated 17th August, 2016 which is
impugned in the present writ petition.
Mr. Khan, learned advocate appearing for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner at the
time of his appointment in the post of assistant
teacher in the school in question was having
educational qualification of B.Sc. (honours) in
Physics but he was appointed as assistant teacher
under pass graduate category. Since the petitioner
is possessing higher qualification of B.Sc. honours
in Physics and subsequently acquired postgraduate
degree he is entitled to receive higher scale of pay
which has wrongly been denied to the petitioner by
issuing memo dated 17th August, 2016. It has
further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that his service has been utilized by the school
authority as a teacher having B.Sc.
honours/postgraduate qualification therefore by
this time he should have been accorded sanction of
honours graduate scale of pay.
Mr. De, learned advocate representing the
State respondents submits that indisputably
petitioner was approved as assistant teacher
considering his educational qualification of B.Sc.
(pass) with effect from 16th October, 2007 since
there was a recommendation of the School Service
Commission to appoint him as pass graduate
candidate. It is also submitted that apart from the
fact that the petitioner was recommended as pass
graduate candidate his claim is contrary to Section
14(2) of the West Bengal Schools (Control of
Expenditure) Act, 2005 and accordingly Mr. De has
defended the decision of the respondent no.3 which
is under challenge in the present writ petition.
This Court has heard the learned advocates
representing the parties and it appears that the
petitioner was appointed on 16th October, 2007 as
an assistant teacher possessing pass graduate
qualification on the recommendation of the School
Service Commission vide memo dated 27th
September, 2007 whereby he was recommended to
be appointed under pass graduate category.
Therefore, on consideration of the date of
appointment of the petitioner on 16th October, 2007
petitioner is estopped from claiming honours
graduate/postgraduate scale of pay in terms of
Section 14(2) of the West Bengal Schools (Control of
Expenditure) Act, 2005.
In addition thereto, it transpires that at the
time of participation of the petitioner for the
selection test conducted by the School Service
Commission he was having honours graduate
qualification but he chose to offer his candidature
as pass graduate candidate on suppressing his
honours graduate qualification. Based on such
application the School Service Commission selected
the petitioner for appointment under pass graduate
category and accordingly recommended him and
subsequently petitioner was appointed in the
school as a teacher under pass graduate category.
Since the petitioner on his own volition decided to
be appointed as a pass graduate teacher
subsequently, he cannot take a turn and claim
honours graduate scale of pay, which is
impermissible.
Mr. Khan, learned advocate has placed
reliance on a judgment, reported in (2015) 1 CLJ
(Cal) 24 in the case of Smt. Nita Dey Chandra -vs
The State of West Bengal & Ors.; on perusal of
paragraph 9 it appears that the facts of the case
was different where the teacher after appointment
acquired higher qualification therefore the ratio of
Nita Dey Chandra (supra) is of no assistance.
Accordingly, this Court does not find merit
in the present writ petition and the same stands
dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order,
if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual
undertakings.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
