Suhas Chandra Sen, J. - (1.) The petitioner's case is that he obtained B. Com. decree from the Dacca University in the year 1961 and B. Ed. degree in the year 1954. Then he joined Shilbarihat High School, Distt. Jalpaiguri as Assistant Teacher in 1965. That School was later upgraded as Class X High School with effect from 1st January, 1966 and it was getting from the Government aid in the nature of lumpsum grant. Further case of the petitioner is that by a circular issued by the Education Department of the Government of West Bengal relating to teachers who passed B. Com. examination (old course) of the Calcutta University prior to the introduction of B. Com. Honours course and were appointed in aided High and Secondary Schools before 1st April 1966, it was decided that such teachers may be treated as Honours Graduates for the purpose of the revised scale of pay and accordingly the petitioner became entitled to receive that advantage, ft is the further case of the petitioner that the Circular as above was later modified as follows:- "Teachers who passed B. Com. examination of Recognised University and were appointed in aided High and Higher Secondary School up to 24th December 1966, may be treated as Honours Graduates for the purpose of the revised scale of pay. Accordingly the petitioner claim that he is entitled to get that advantage.
(2.) There are three disputes in this case. First of all it has been argued that when the petitioner was appointed, he was appointed in a Junior School and the school was not a High School. To that the petitioner's contention is that if the School became a high school with effect from 1-1-1966 the petitioner was working there and the petitioner must be treated as if he had been appointed in a high school before on 1-1-1966.
(3.) The second point was that the School in which the petitioner was working was not a government aided school but only was given a lump sum by way of assistance. Petitioner contends that that dispute is also frivolous because what is a government aided school has not been defined and that the school was getting government aid cannot be disputed. It is only the for of the aid that has been disputed. I am unable to hold that at the material time because the aid was being given in lump sum, the school could not be described as a government aided school.;