ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI,J. - (1.) The writ petitioner challenged the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools wherein he has refused to grant higher scale of pay. Earlier a writ petition was moved by the writ petitioner. The order passed by this Hon'ble Court disposing of the earlier writ petition being W.P. No.11710(W) of 2007 reads as follows:- "...... ...... ...... Said officer will consider all the aspects of the matter as to be placed by the writ petitioner and thereby will pass a reasoned decision on the issue. The said officer will also consider the impact of the coming into effect of the School Service Commission Act and the procedure of selection thereto including the classification of different posts namely the graduate teacher post and post graduate teacher post, while deciding the issue, as fact of determination. This writ is disposed of accordingly."
(2.) Pursuant to the aforesaid order the concerned District Inspector of Schools gave an opportunity of hearing and passed the following order : " Hon'ble Justice Pratap Kumar Roy sitting in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta passed an order on 27.09.07 in Writ Petition (W.P. 11710(W) of 2007) in the matter of Mosarraf Hossain v. State and Others inter alia directing Principal Secretary, Education Deptt. of this Govt. to hear the grievance of the Writ petitioner and pass a reasoned decision on the issue raised in the Writ petition. Principal Secretary, School Education Deptt. Forwarded the matter to this Deptt. For necessary action. Notice of Hearing was duly served to all concerned fixing 20.05.09 for hearing at 3 P.M. in the Chamber of undersigned. The matter was taken up for hearing at 3 P.M. today (20.05.09). None turned up. The matter was considered. The facts of the case is that the writ-petitioner was an organizer teacher of Narapatipara Junior High Madrasah since 15.11.77. Subsequently the Madrasah was recognized and his service was approved by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Nadia w.e.f. 01.01.1984, The Writ-petitioner passed M.M. (Mumtazul Muhaddethin) degree in 1977. His plea is that graduate teachers were allowed pay scale of Rs. 440-1170 from the date of approval but he was allowed the scale after five years as holder of M.M. degree. He described the same as discrimination and prayed for justice by giving him the graduate scale from the date of approval. In support of his claim he referred the decision of the Calcutta High Court passed by Hon'ble Justice Indira Banerjee on 05.08.04 in the matter of Md. Rownaque Ali Shaji and others - -s- State in W.P. No.2148(W) of 2001 where in the petitioner possessing M.M. degree was allowed graduate scale from the date of approval of service. District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) North 24 Parganas vide Memo No.660/1(4)/(Law) dated 6.10.05 allowed similarly placed teachers with M.M. Qualification graduate scale from the date of approval following the case reference of Justice Indira Banerjee in W.P. 2148(W) of 2001. Considered the Writ-petition and the documents filed. The circular of the School Education Deptt. allowed trained graduate teachers the scale of pay 440-1170. Simply M.M. degree holders are equated with untrained teacher and for this the scale of trained teacher was allowed only after 5 years of experience in regular service. This was a policy decision of the State Government. Thus no discrimination was found in the said circular. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is difficult to apply the analogy propounded in the Judgment of Indira Banerjee and allow the graduate scale i.e. 440-1170 (as was at the relevant time) to the writ-petitioner from the date of approval of service i.e. 01.01.84. Various provisions of the School Service Commission Act and the procedure of selection thereto have been duly considered. This has no impact on the present case. Hence the prayer of the writ-petitioner to allow graduate scale from the date of approval on 01.01.84 is rejected as he was holder of trained graduate degree."
(3.) The writ petitioner had to come up questioning the aforesaid order by filing the present writ application. On 17th August, 2009 the writ application was moved in presence of the State lawyer and the following order was passed:- " Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within two weeks after long puja vacation. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. Parties are given liberty to approach the appropriate bench having determination for fixing an early date of hearing of the matter after completion of affidavits.";