BAISHALI BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was a post graduate degree-holder in physical Education. She was selected for the post of Physical Education through the regular recruitment process conducted by the School Service commission. At that stage her post graduate result was yet to be published. She was recommended to Sinthi Ramkrishna Sangha Vidyamandir (Girls) as a Physical Education teacher as a pass graduate. After declaration of her result she applied for higher pay scale which was denied by the State. She approached the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated April 10, 2006 dismissed the writ application after observing that in view of the provisions of Sections 14,16 and 20 of the West Bengal Schools (Control and Expenditure) Act, 2005 she was not entitled to higher scale. Hence this appeal.

(2.) IDENTICAL question was gone into by Indira Banerjee, J. in the case of Bhaskar Chakrabotryv. State of West Bengal and Ors. , [w. P. 2326 (w)/2002]. His Lordship vide judgment and order dated September 22, 2004 allowed the writ petition and directed extension of the post graduate scale to the writ petitioner therein who was identically circumstanced with the present appellant. A belated appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated december 12, 2006 in MAT 2096/2006. We are told, State accepted the said order and extended benefit to the writ petitioner therein. Learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, submits that citing the said decision in the case of bhaskar Chakraborty (supra) several orders were passed where State government extended the benefit.

(3.) MR. Saikat Banerjee, learned Counsel, appearing for the School service Commission contends that the teachers appointed through School service Commission are entitled to pay as per their qualification recorded by the School Service Commission and mentioned in the respective letters of recommendation. In the instant case, the appellant was a pass graduate. Accordingly, she was recommended. Her subsequent acquisition of post graduate degree is of no consequence as her claim for higher pay is hit by section 14 of the said Act of 2005.