Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mijanaur Rahaman vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 30 September, 2024
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
3009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2024 APPELLATE SIDE
MONDAY
Court : 08
MAT 1825 of 2022
Item
Matter
: DL-06
: MAT
with
Status
Bench ID
: DO
: 266211 CAN 1 of 2024
Transcriber : NANDY
Mijanaur Rahaman
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Samim Ahmed, Advocate
Mr. Arka Maiti, Advocate
Ms. Ambiya Khatun, Advocate
......for the Appellant
Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra, Advocate
Mr. Subhabrata Das, Advocate
......for the State
1.
The petitioner claims higher scale of pay after
obtaining the master degree under the Career
Advancement Scheme which was denied by the
Authority.
2. The writ-petition was dismissed solely on the
ground that the petitioner did not inform the
District Inspector of Schools (SE) that he is
pursuing a post-graduate degree course at the
time of joining or thereafter.
3. The appellant submits that in view of the
judgment of the Special Bench rendered in the
case of Utpal Kanti Karan Vs. State of West
Bengal & Ors. in APO 343 of 2013, he is entitled
to a higher scale of pay having pursuing the
post-graduate degree course at the time of his
appointment.
4. On the other hand, the State submits that in view
of the Government Order No. 593-SE(B) dated
27.11.2007, in the event, the petitioner does not
seek a prior permission of the concerned
District Inspector of Schools (SE) for pursuing a
higher degree course, he will not be entitled to
higher scale of pay.
5. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in
case of Md. Adeel Uz Zaman Vs. State of West
Bengal & Ors. reported in 2021 LAB IC 2074 (in
MAT 825 of 2022 dated 11.02.2021), was cited
before the Single Bench wherein it is held that
since the teacher enrolled himself in the post-
graduate degree course prior to his
appointment and successfully competed
subsequently, there is no point in seeking prior
permission to enroll himself for the purpose of
higher degree courses. The Single Bench
distinguished the ratio laid down by the
Division Bench on the ground that the petitioner
ought to have informed that he is pursuing the
post-graduate degree course at the time of his
appointment to the District Inspector of Schools
and having not done so, the ratio of law laid
down in the above-noted decision is not coming
in aid of the appellant.
6. We are unable to countenance the view
expressed by the Single Bench for the reason
that the said GO dated 27.11.2007 is only in
relation to a candidate who was in service and
intended to pursue the post-graduate degree
course. In such event, prior permission may be
necessary but we do not find any obligation in
the said GO imposed upon the candidate who
was pursuing the higher degree course at the
time of his appointment and subsequently
completed the same.
7. It is misnomer that a person who is not in
service would seek permission from the District
Inspector of Schools. The language used in the
said GO does not indicate that at the time of
joining the service, the information or intimation
should be given. At times we have come across
where the application offering the candidature
may contain an information about pursuing the
higher degree course which itself is indicative
of the fact that there is sufficient knowledge
having percolated into the authorities.
8. Be that as it may, GO 1595-SE(S) dated
26.12.2005 does not put any fetter of such nature
and the Special Bench answered the reference
in this regard in the following:-
"(g) If a teacher has partially completed higher
study before entering service he/she would come
under purview of GO No. 1595-SE(S) dated
26.12.2005 and the question of taking permission
from DIS-SE concerned would not arise."
9. In view of the above, the judgment impugned in
the instant appeal runs counter to the judgment
of the Special Bench and, therefore, cannot be
sustained.
10. Accordingly, the judgment impugned is set
aside.
11. The authorities are directed to adhere to the
principle of law laid down by the Special Bench
and all the exercise shall be completed within
eight weeks from the date of communication of
this order.
12. The appeal being MAT 1825 of 2022 and the
connected application being CAN 1 of 2024 are
disposed of.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J)
