Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Md. Serajuddin vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.) on 8 May, 2018
Author: Protik Prakash Banerjee
Bench: Protik Prakash Banerjee
1 18 8.5.2018 jb.
W.P. 4981(W) of 2017 (Md. Serajuddin vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya Mr. Golam Mohiuddin .... For the Petitioner Mr. Tapan Mukherjee Mr. Somnath Naskar .... For the State Learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. Tapan Mukherjee appearing for the State has filed an affidavit in opposition. In the affidavit in opposition a judgment dated December 7, 2017 passed by His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Sahidullah Munshi has been disclosed. Such judgment has been relied upon in support of the contention that the writ petitioner is not entitled to obtain higher scale of pay. The ground urged is that the writ petitioner has obtained higher qualification though appointed as graduate teacher. However, such submission in respect of Section 14 of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 is vehemently opposed by Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that his client applied for the vacancy declared in the post of graduate teacher holding MM qualification which was acquired by him after 1998 and his selection was made prior to 2008 when he was appointed and started working. 2 Thereafter by two separate circulars of 2008 and 2009 his qualification of MM was held to be equivalent to a master degree and a separate higher scale of pay was given for such MM qualification. He submits, therefore, that this is not a case where he has made or obtained higher qualification after having applied for selection as graduate teacher. Without going into the history of the educational qualification as are awarded under the Madrasha system of education, he would submit that he is simply relying and claiming under the said circular. He would submit that the judgment rendered on December 7, 2016 annexed to the affidavit in opposition, therefore, has no manner of application in respect of the present case. On the contrary he submits that the judgement rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Akmal Hossain vs. State of West Bengal on December 1, 2016 passed by this Court is applicable to the case. Mr. Bhattacharyya also produced a copy of the order dated April 17, 2017 whereby the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education has complied with the order of December 1, 2016 as referred to above. Learned counsel appearing for the Director of Madrasah submits that such compliance was made subject to the result of an appeal from the case. I find the order of compliance mentions nothing about any pending appeal. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits no appeal has been preferred from the judgement dated December 1, 2016. Copies of the order of 3 compliance have been served on the learned advocate appearing for the State and the Director of Madrasah Education by Mr. Bhattacharyya's advocate on record today in presence of the Court. In such view of the matter it does not appear that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment in the case of Azizul Haque Laskar vs. State of West Bengal as submitted by Mr.Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader. However, this finding is prima facie. The item nos. 19, 20, 21, 29 to 32 shall be consolidated and heard analogously and be treated as heard in part. The matter shall appear on next Tuesday (15th May, 2018) when Mr. Bhattacharyya is requested to bring a comprehensive list of dates in connection with all the above matters fixed.
(Protik Prakash Banerjee, J.) 4