ANITA PATTANAYAK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th September, 2004, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12314 (W) of 2002, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants herein was dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioners had no locus standi to move the writ petition, inasmuch as they were neither the persons aggrieved nor were they prejudicially affected.

(2.) The writ petitioners/appellants were the guardians (at the point of time of filing of the writ petition) of their wards, who were reading in a school, named Palaspai Anchal Gita Rani Dhara Balika Vidyalaya, situated in village-Bhairabpur in the District of Hooghly. According to the writ petitioners/appellants, the school was recognized as a 'Class-X' school on and from 1st May, 1992 and the concerned District Inspector of Schools approved twelve (12) teaching and three (03) non-teaching staff with effect from that date.

(3.) It was contended by the writ petitioners/appellants that the District Inspector of Schools approved the fixation and appointment of the respondent No. 9, being Smt. Ratna Saha and respondent No. 10, being Smt. Sadhana Das, as teacher-in-charge and assistant teacher respectively and fixed their pay scale as stated in Memo dated 30th December, 1993. It was contended that Smt. Ratna Saha was M.A. in Political Science and Music and she passed her Secondary Education in compartmental and in B.A. she appeared in Part I and Part II combined and Smt. Sadhana Saha was MA in Philsophy; but neither Political Science nor Music nor Philosophy Were included in the secondary syllabus of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and in normal course these subjects were not taught in the said school. It was further contended that although a teacher became entitled to a higher scale of pay for having higher education, but in case of non-relevant subjects, i.e., if the higher qualification was in a subject which was not within the syllabus or was not taught in the institution in which such a teacher is employed, she would not be entitled to such higher scale of pay and the said teacher would only be entitled to pay scale of a graduate assistant teacher. According to the writ petitioners/appellants, the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 were not entitled to higher scale of pay, but the pay scale that of an assistant teacher.