JUDGMENT :

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1) An order of Director of School Education (Now, Commissioner of School Education), West Bengal dated July 27, 2006 is under challenge in the instant writ petition. By dint of the same, the said authority has rejected the petitioner’s prayer for grant of higher pay scale, pursuant to his M.P.Ed. qualification.

2) The fact in brief in this case is that, the petitioner was appointed in the school on August 1, 2001 after being recommended for appointment by School Service Commission. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was qualified with B.Com, B.P.Ed degrees. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner was a regular student of M.P.Ed. Part-II in Kalyani University and without hampering classes, he completed M.P.Ed. degree. He was allowed study leave with full pay for appearing in M.P.Ed examination by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. After being qualified in M.P.Ed. degree, the petitioner has sought for higher pay scale to be granted to him, in terms of Government Notification No. 417-SE(B) dated July 8, 2000 (in short, Notification No. 417)

3) According to the petitioner, he would be eligible for the post-graduate scale of pay with effect from the date following the last date of his examination that is, from July 9, 2003.

4) On the factual backdrop of the case as mentioned above, the Director of School Education (Now, Commissioner of School Education), West Bengal in his order dated July 27, 2006 has held inter alia that the petitioner was appointed, being recommended by the Regional School Service Commission (Southern Region) as a Pass Graduate degree holder in Physical Education subject. Admittedly however, the petitioner obtained M.P.Ed degree from Kalyani University in the year 2003 as a regular candidate and that the Managing Committee of the School as well as Board has granted him study leave for appearing in the final examinations. The said respondent has questioned as to how the petitioner could attend a regular course of study in M.P.Ed degree course. The said respondent has also noted that in terms of Government Notification No. 155-SE(B) dated July 13, 1999 (in short, Notification No. 155), the petitioner would not be entitled for higher scale but only for the pay scale as per his qualification mentioned by the School Service Commission in the letter of recommendation. According to the said respondent, the said provision under Notification No. 155 would be squarely applicable in case of the petitioner as his appointment has been in a pass graduate category post and that he would only be entitled for the Graduate pay scale, which is the qualification of him mentioned in the recommendation letter, issued by the Commission.

5) In the impugned order as above, the respondent/Director of School Education (Now, Commissioner of School Education), West Bengal has also mentioned a judgment of this Court dated July 4, 2006 in W.P. No. 391(W) of 2006. He says that, in terms of the verdict of the Court as above, that pursuant to provisions under Sections 14, 16 and 20 of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005, a teacher is not entitled to claim benefit of additional increment or higher scale of pay on acquiring any qualification other than the qualification specified for the post, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit he has claimed for. Also that, according to the said respondent, as mentioned in the impugned order, the provision under Notification No. 417 is not applicable in his case since he has been appointed through the School Service Commission.

6) Mr. Biswas has represented the petitioner in this case. According to Mr. Biswas, the points involved in the instant case are no more res integra. He mentions that this Court in the following cases has conclusively decided the dispute involved in the instant case. He has referred to the following judgments.

(i) Baishali Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2008 2 Cal LT 590

(ii) Kalyan Kuma