ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI,J. - (1.) It is very unfortunate case of the petitioner who is fighting before this Court since 2001. The petitioner's grievance is that although he has improved his qualification in the year 1996 the concerned respondents are not giving and/or sanctioning higher scale of pay in favour of the writ petitioner. On last two occasions this Court directed for consideration of the prayer of the writ petitioner by quashing the memo issued by the concerned District Inspector of Schools. It was recorded in the earlier order that the documents which were submitted by the petitioner for consideration were not considered and ultimately on 17th December, 2008 again the matter was referred to the concerned District Inspector of Schools for consideration of granting higher scale of pay in favour of the writ petitioner. But unfortunately on 28th April, 2009 on similar ground the concerned District Inspector of Schools rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that the District Inspector of Schools has wrongly rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner taking the plea of the application of the provision of Control of Expenditure Act, 2005 as well as the circular dated 27th November, 2007.
(3.) Learned Counsel submitted that as per the decision of this Hon'ble Court, Control of Expenditure Act, 2005 is not applicable since the writ petitioner has improved his qualification in the year 1996 and furthermore, the Circular dated 27th November, 2007 is not attracted in this case as per the decision as taken in the different matters in this Hon'ble Court.;