Calcutta High Court
Palash Kumar Das vs West Bengal Board Of Secondary ... on 2 April, 2009
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
WP No. 159 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
PALASH KUMAR DAS Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION Respondent
& ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE Date : 2nd April, 2009.
The Court : In this matter, the writ petition was moved upon service of notice on the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education as well as the other respondents as it would appear from the affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner. However, on the date the court application was moved, no one had appeared for the Board who is the effective respondent in this matter. Under those circumstances, this court requested Mr. Kallol Basu, learned Advocate, who usually appears for the Board, to take instruction from the Board and appear in this matter. Subsequently, Mr. Basu has appeared in this matter and submits that he has obtained instructions from Mr. Sankar Karmakar, being the authorised officer of the Board to instruct learned Advocates in this regard. Let his engagement under these circumstances be regularised by the Board.
The writ petitioner herein is an Assistant Teacher in the subject of pure science, presently serving Jateswar High School in the district of 2 Jalpaiguri. The school in question, as submitted by Mr. Chatterjee, is a recognised non-Government aided secondary school.
The petitioner claims to have obtained Master Decree in Mathematics (Bridge Course, Part I and Part II) from North Bengal University and for this purpose he has taken prior leave from the Managing Committee of the school. Such leave was obtained from the Managing Committee in terms of clause 1 of the order issued by the Government of West Bengal, School Education Department (Secondary Branch), bearing no.593-SE(B)-ES/OB/1M-98/2007, dated November 27, 2007. As it appears from the communication dated November 17, 2005, the concerned school had given intimation to the Additional District Inspector of Schools(SE). For the purpose of obtaining special leave, in terms of clause 5(2), read with clause 2 of the aforesaid order, such teachers are required to apply before the Board through the Managing Committee of the School. Such request was made to the Board on July 30, 2008 by the Head Master of the school as it appears from annexure P-7 to the writ petition. However, the Board is yet to approve such leave and it appears that they have sought for certain particulars from the Managing Committee. Most of the requests appear to be written information, excepting one being the copy of the prior permission of the District Inspector of schools(SE) as has been stipulated in the communication of the Board dated November 5, 2008.
Mr. Chatterjee however submits that since his client is not desirous of utilising such additional qualification for the purpose of additional increment or higher scale of pay in his present employment, prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools is not necessary. In this regard, he has relied on clause 3 of the Government order dated November 27, 2007 which stipulates as follows:
"3. The teacher is required to seek prior permission of concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) (only when he/she wants to claim additional 3 increment/higher scale of pay etc. for obtaining such higher qualification) through the Managing Committee of the School."
On a plain reading of this particular clause, it appears that such prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools is necessary only when the concerned teacher wants to claim additional increment/higher scale of pay for obtaining such higher qualification. The case of the petitioner is that he is not going to claim any such benefits in his present employment, but the higher qualification obtained by him would enable him to improve his career prospect in potential future employment and that would also better equip him to discharge his duties in the present employment.
Mr. Basu, appearing for the Board, submits that the question of granting approval is not a matter of right and the Board has discretion to decide as to whether they shall approve such leave application or not.
I accept the submission of Mr. Basu that the Board has discretion on the aspect of granting approval for leave, but such discretion has to be exercised reasonably and in a transparent manner since the leave rules and the government order themselves stipulate that a teacher serving a school is entitled to improve his educational qualification. So far as the question of seeking prior permission of the District Inspector of schools is concerned, the government order stipulates the conditions under which such prior permission would be necessary. As a corollary, in my opinion, in the event a teacher does not want to claim additional increment/higher scale of pay, such prior permission would not be necessary. I also accept Mr. Chatterjee's submission that the claim for additional increment/higher scale of pay as specified in clause 3 of the Government order dated November 27, 2007 should be read to be in relation to his present employment as obtaining better qualification would entitle a teacher to obtain service or employment in future, but that would not constitute additional increment or higher scale of pay, used in the aforesaid clause. No other rule or circular or order has been cited before me by any of 4 the parties from where a different intention of the educational authorities would be gathered.
Under these circumstances, I choose to dispose of this writ petition by directing the Board to decide upon the question of approval of leave of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. I further direct the Board not to insist on the prior permission of the District Inspector of schools while taking decision on the leave application of the petitioner since I have already held that in the circumstances of the present case, no such prior permission is necessary.
The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.
Since this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for any affidavit, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.) tk