- (1.) THE petitioner herein was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Language Group. Her appointment was approved with effect from 1st July, 1988. At the time of approving the appointment of the petitioner, her educational qualification was B.A.B.Ed. Her said educational qualification was recorded in the approval letter. Subsequently, she enhanced her educational qualification by acquiring Master Degree in Hindi in 2002 from a recognised University, namely, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith. 2
(2.) THE result of the said examination was published on 10th February, 2003. The petitioner's claim for higher scale of pay for her Master Degree was rejected by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Kolkata, on 29th September, 2011 as the staff pattern of the school concerned does not justify grant of higher scale of pay to the petitioner for her Master Degree. The District Inspector of Schools (SE) held that there are four approved teaching posts in the Language Group in the said school. Two teachers in the Language Group enjoying Honours/Post Graduate scale of pay are working in the said school. As per the staff pattern of the said school, only two teachers in the Language Group are entitled to Honours/Post Graduate scale. The remaining two teachers in the Language Group are entitled to graduate scale only. Since two teachers in the Language Group are presently enjoying the Master Degree scale, the District Inspector of Schools (SE)is of the view that the Master Degree scale cannot be granted to the petitioner even though she acquired Master Degree in the relevant subject. The legality and/or validity of the said order is under challenge in this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the State-Respondents that the said District Inspector of Schools (SE) did not commit any illegality in passing the said order as the said order was passed by him in strict adherence to the direction 3
(3.) GIVEN by this Court earlier on 15th July, 2011 while disposing of the petitioner's earlier writ petition, being WP No. 441 of 2007. Attention of this Court was drawn to the earlier order, as mentioned above, whereby the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) was directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for grant of higher scale of pay afresh in the light of the provisions contained in clause 12(3) of ROPA, 1998 with a rider that in the event it is found that the condition contained in the proviso to clause 12(3) is satisfied in the present case, then the District Inspector of Schools (SE) will not refuse to grant higher scale of pay to the petitioner provided, however, it is found that she enhanced her higher qualification by acquiring Master Degree from a recognised University. The petitioner's claim for her higher scale of pay was not rejected by the concerned authority on the ground that she did not acquire her Master Degree from a recognised University. The petitioner's prayer for grant of higher scale of pay was rejected by the concerned authority as the staff pattern does not justify grant of such higher scale of pay to the petitioner. The proviso added to para-12(3) indicates clearly that higher scale of pay can be granted to a teacher acquiring higher educational qualification provided staff pattern justifies grant of such higher scale of pay. It is no doubt true that the staff pattern of the said school does not justify grant of higher scale of pay to the petitioner for her Master Degree qualification. Thus, on the face of the provision contained in para-12(3) of the Government Order dated 13th July, 1999, this Court is of the view that the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) did not commit any illegality in coming to the conclusion that the staff pattern of the said school does not justify grant of higher scale of pay. Mrs. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, draws my attention to the Division Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of The State of West Bengal & Ors. -versus- Sauvik Ghosh & Ors. reported in 2008(1) CLJ (Cal) 810 wherein the legality of the said proviso added to para-12(3) of the said Government Order dated 13th July, 1999 was considered in paragraphs 47 and 48 of the said judgment which are set out hereunder : "47. Where all Assistant Teachers constitute a single class, and as per the Government Orders pertaining to salary and allowances of their scales are to be fixed on the basis of qualifications in the relevant teaching subject, payment of different scales to two teachers with the same qualifications, teaching the same subjects in the same classes, in the same or in different aided Non-Government schools or Madrasahs and thus equally circumstanced, on the basis of a sham classification based on the requisite qualification for the teaching post, as per the approved staff pattern, which is in no way related to the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the treaching posts, amounts to denial of equal pay for equal work and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is immaterial that separate selection tests are conducted by the School Service Commission for posts earmarked for Pass Graduates and posts earmarked for Honours Graduates/Post Graduates. 48. The Government Order dated 13th July, 1999 in so far as the same provides that teachers who improve their qualifications or are appointed with higher qualifications in subjects relevant to their teaching, would get higher scale of pay provided the higher qualification was a requisite qualification for the post as per approved staff pattern of the school is patently discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India for reasons stated hereinabove.";