Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rashmoni Ghoshal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 July, 2014
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
23.07.2014
S.L.-6(KB).
W.P. 9850 (W) of 2001
Rashmoni Ghoshal
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mrs. Usha Maiti
...For the Petitioner.
Mr. Subhabrata Datta,
Mr. Sankar Prasad Dalapati
... For the State respsondents.
The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ
application is a memorandum dated 8th June, 2001 issued
by the respondent no.2.
Mrs. Maiti, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that upon participating in a selection process and upon emerging to be successful in the same the petitioner availed appointment to the post of an Assistant Teacher in Gobindapore Makrampore Swarmoyee Sasmal Sikshaniketan (hereinafter referred to as the said School) on the rudiments of her qualification as Bachelor in Science.
Mrs. Maiti submits that at the time of entry in the service, the petitioner was also having a degree of Master of Arts in History and as the existing teachers in the Social 2 Science Group were not sufficient to meet the academic needs of the students, the said school authorities took a conscious decision to allot additional classes to the petitioner in History over and above her normal duties.
Mrs. Maiti further submits that in the midst thereof, the Government promulgated a notification dated 27th January, 1995 for the purpose of grant of Post Graduate scale of pay to those Assistant Teachers whose higher qualification in a non-relevant subject is utilised by the school in the interest of the students at large.
Mrs. Maiti further submits that as the petitioner was allotted classes teach History and as such service was utilised by the school, the petitioner became entitled to avail the benefits of Post Graduate scale of pay on the rudiments of her Post Graduation degree in History.
Mrs. Maiti further submits that the school authorities themselves approached the respondent no.2 recommending the petitioner's claim for Post Graduate scale of pay and upon consideration of such representation, the respondent no.2 granted higher scale of pay to the petitioner with effect from 1st February, 1995 as would be explicit from the memorandum dated 4th June, 1996. On the basis of the said order, the petitioner continued to avail the Post 3 Graduate scale of pay. As a bolt from the blue the selfsame respondent no.2 issued a memorandum dated 8th June, 2001 withdrawing the earlier memorandum dated 4th June, 1996 and observing, inter alia, that no prior permission was obtained from the respondent no.2 for the purpose of allotment of additional classes in History to the petitioner and that the alleged allotment of such classes in History was not in the academic interest of the students at large and that there were already sufficient teachers to handle the work load.
According to Mrs. Maiti, as the respondent no.2 has sanctioned the higher scale of pay to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 4th February, 1996, upon considering the existing Government circulars including the circular dated 27th January, 1995, the selfsame respondent cannot review and withdraw the said earlier decision through the memorandum dated 8th June, 2001, impugned in the instant writ application.
In support of such contention Mrs. Maiti relies upon a judgement delivered by this Court in the case of Sri Subhendu Kundu vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2010 CWN (Vol.114) page 638 wherein the Court has, inter alia, observed that there is no provision of 4 law conferring any power upon the District Inspector of Schools to review the decision of his predecessor-in-interest.
In support of her contention, Mrs. Maiti has also placed reliance upon the judgement delivered in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi and others vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1273 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed that it is well settled that the power of review is not an inherent power and it must be conferred by law.
Mrs. Maiti has also placed reliance upon a judgement in the case of Anchal Bhusan Bose vs. Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal & Ors. reported in 81 CWN 1073.
Mrs. Maiti concludes by submitting that the fact that the petitioner was allotted additional classes to meet academic needs of the students at large was ascertained to be correct and that as such the respondent no.2 sanctioned the higher scale of pay to the petitioner on the basis of Government circular dated 27th January, 1995 and that after such sanction question, as to whether any prior permission was sought for prior to such allotment of classes in History to the petitioner, becomes redundant. 5
Mr. Dalapati, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents, submits that a perusal of the impugned memorandum itself would reveal that there were sufficient teachers in the Social Science Group to handle the work load and that in the guise of alleged allotment of additional classes for which there was no necessity, the petitioner has claimed higher scale of pay and that as such the petitioner is not entitled to the higher scale.
I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record.
In consideration of the fact that the petitioner was allotted additional classes in a non-relevant subject and that her services were utilised for the benefits of the students at large, the respondent no.2 by the memorandum dated 4th June, 1996 granted the higher scale benefit to the petitioner and the said order was suddenly withdrawn almost after five years by the impugned order dated 8th June, 2001 by the respondent no.2 himself. The contents of the said impugned memorandum clearly reveals that the respondent no.2 has reviewed his earlier order and has withdrawn the same.
6
In my opinion, in the absence of any provision of law conferring any power upon the respondent no.2 to review the earlier decision of his predecessor in office, the impugned order dated 8th June, 2001 is unsustainable in law and accordingly the same stands set aside and quashed.
In my opinion, it would be appropriate, to relegate the matter to the respondent no.3, being the Director of School Education, to decide afresh as to whether the grant of Post Graduate scale of pay to the petitioner on the basis of her Post Graduation in History was just and proper. Accordingly, I direct the respondent no.3 to take such decision, in accordance with law upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the school authorities and to communicate the same to the petitioner.
The above exercise should be completed by the respondent no.3 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order along with a copy of the writ application.
Till such decision is taken by the respondent no.3, the respondents are directed to continue to disburse the Post Graduate scale of pay to the petitioner.
With the above observations and directions the writ application is disposed of.
7
There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)