02.2024 RP Ct. No.7 WPA 24848 of 2008 Abhijit Bhattacharyya v. State of West Bengal Mr. Sakti Pada Jana Mr. Subhajyoti Das …..for & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Outcome
Allowed
and quashed and the writ petition stands allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1818. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the District Inspector of Schools should not have rejected the claim of appellant/petitioner for higher scale of pay even after acquiring higher qualification i.e. M.Sc in Mathematics.” (emphasis supplied) We are in agreement with…
Judgment
the argument of Mr. Moitra that paragraph 3 of the circular dated 27th November, 2007 cannot override the provisions of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure Act, 2005) was accepted as would be evident from paragraphs 15 to 18 of the said decision. The said paragraphs read : “15. Mr. Moitra also submits that Para 3 of the aforesaid circular dated 27th November, 2007 cannot override the provisions of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005.
Mr. Moitra invites our attention to Section 14(30 of the aforesaid Act, 2005 and submits that the appellant/petitioner is entitled to draw pay of 3 post graduate upon acquiring post graduate degree. The said section 14(3) is set out hereunder:
(3) Every teacher of a school shall, if appointed in the Honours Graduate or Postgraduate 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.
It is true that a circular cannot override the specific provisions of the Act. In the present case, the appellant/petitioner was admittedly appointed in the school as Honours Graduate with B.Ed degree. As a matter of fact, at the time of joining the school qualification of the appellant was Honours Graduate in Mathematics and B.Ed. Subsequently the said appellant acquired post- graduate degree. Therefore, in terms of Section 14(3) of The West Bengal Act, XIV of 2005 appellant herein is entitled to dray pay of postgraduate teacher. Furthermore, Para 3 of the Office order dated 27th November, 2007 has not been specifically violated in the present case since the appellant also sought for prior permission from the concerned District Inspector of Schools for undergoing post graduate studies through the managing committee of the school and such permission was never denied by the said District Inspector of Schools.
Operative part
Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the District Inspector of Schools should not have rejected the claim of appellant/petitioner for higher scale of pay even after acquiring higher qualification i.e. M.Sc in Mathematics.” (emphasis supplied) We are in agreement with the said decision.” 4 This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for higher scale of pay after acquiring the Post Graduate qualification could not have been rejected by the District Inspector of Schools. In view thereof, the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 15th July, 2005 is set aside and quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to grant Post- Graduate scale of pay in favour of the petitioner and to take all consequential steps thereafter so that the petitioner is extended the benefits of Post-Graduate scale of pay with effect from the last date of examination. There shall, however, no order as to costs.
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: and quashed and the writ petition stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
West Bengal Schools Control of Expenditure Act, 2005; West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005; West Bengal Act — s. 14(3).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.