An Assistant Teacher cannot claim a higher pay scale based on a higher qualification in a different subject, and prior permission from the District Inspector of Schools is mandatory for the allotment of classes in a higher section.

ORDER

1. The Court : The writ petition has been filed assailing a decision/order dated July 8, 2016, Annexure P14 to the writ petition, passed by the third respondent, whereunder the petitioner was declined from receiving the higher scale.

2. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was appointed and had been working as an Assistant Teacher in the Work Education Stream at Bhandarhati B.M. Institution (for short, the said school) since November 3, 1997 with the approval from the third respondent dated May 8, 1998. The petitioner had qualified Masters of Commerce ( M.Com) from university of Burdwan and the B.P.Ed. and Semister Examination 1990. The petitioner was appointed as a Work Education Teacher in the normal section i.e. Class (V) to (X). In view of the paucity of teachers, at the request of the relevant school authority of the said school, the petitioner used to take commerce classes for classes (XI) and (XII). The routine by which petitioner's classes were fixed was also made known to the Concerned District Inspector of School, Annexure P-7 to the writ petition. Though the petitioner used to take several classes for classes (XI) and (XII) in commerce stream, yet the petitioner, despite repeated requests and representations made by him, did not receive the higher scale commensurating with his Masters degree.

3. This is the third round of writ petition on the issue, as this Court has been told. Previously pursuant to the directions made by a co-ordinate Bench representations were considered but on one or the other plea the prayer of petitioner was rejected for granting the higher scale. Lastly, the prayer of the petitioner for higher scale was rejected by the decision/order dated July 8, 2016 passed by the third respondent, which is impugned herein.

4. Mr. Syed Shamsul Arefin, learned Counsel with Miss Maniz Kulsum, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the service condition of the petitioner, who was appointed in 1997 as Assistant Teacher was governed under the provisions of the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1990 (ROPA 1990). Career Advancement Scheme and related issues are provided under Rule 16 of the ROPA 1990. In terms of such provision, the petitioner claims that he deserves the higher pay scale, since he had acquired a higher qualification though not in the subject for which he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher.

5. Referring to Annexure P-11 to the writ petition which is a circular containing administrative instruction issued by the Department of School Education dated January 27, 1995 (for short, the said 1995 Circular), he submitted that, by the same the career advancement scheme was further promoted following the said ROPA 1990 guidelines. He submits that, the said circular provides that even if an Assistant Teacher who was appointed for a particular subject if possessed a higher and proper qualification on any other different subject, subject to the compliance with the formalities, as mentioned in the said 1995 Circular, the teacher would be allowed and eligible to take classes in the higher section, on such subject in which he had acquired the higher qualification other than the subject for which he was appointed. He submitted that, this was not an unknown territory of the respondent State Authorities rather was a permitted territory.

6. Referring to Annexure P-12 to the writ petition, he submits that, similarly circumstanced candidates had received the higher pay scale, as such, the claim of the petitioner was also justified and lawful. By refusing to grant such higher pay scale to the petitioner, who was a candidate similarly placed to those mentioned in Annexure P-12, the principle of equal pay for equal work was violated and as such, there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. Referring to Annexure P-7 to the writ petition, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that, this class routine permitting the petitioner to t