Indrani Kar vs State Of West Bengal & 5 Ors

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J

The Court : The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher of Hindi in the concerned school where the petitioner was appointed on 5th May, 2008 and was confirmed on 1st July, 2012. The petitioner has challenged two orders dated 28th March, 2019 and 12th April, 2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools rejecting the petitioner's prayer for post graduate scale of pay. The reason given in the impugned orders is that there is no sanctioned post in the Language group in the Higher Secondary section in the concerned school and the petitioner was given the pay scale of a pass graduate teacher.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been permitted by the school to teach in the Higher Secondary section from the date of her appointment, namely from 5th May, 2008 and that the petitioner had received a higher scale of pay on that basis. Counsel relies on documents showing that the petitioner's scale of pay was abruptly revised from Rs.19,668/- to Rs.13,013/- on the basis of the decision of the DI and that the classes which had been earlier allotted to the petitioner in the Higher Secondary section were taken away from her. Counsel relies on a letter written by the petitioner to the teacher in-charge on 4th May, 2019 objecting to the reduction of higher scale of pay and recording that the petitioner had received a post graduate scale of pay from the date of her joining the school on 5th May, 2008. Counsel places a communication from the school dated 21st January, 2014 showing that despite one Satwant Lal, who used to teach Hindi in the school, retiring on 27th April, 2009, the petitioner has not been appointed in his place.

Learned counsel for the school relies on the affidavit filed on behalf of the school showing that there is no sanctioned post in the Higher Secondary section in the school for accommodating the petitioner. The staff pattern produced by the school shows that the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher of Hindi in the Normal section and has been put in place of one Satwant Lal, who retired on 27th April, 2009. Counsel also places a letter dated 9th July, 2019 written by the teacher in-charge of the school to the District Inspector stating, inter alia, that there is no approved post for Higher Secondary section and that the appointment of teachers were approved by way of a Memo dated 27th March, 1968 by which forty teachers and two clerks were sanctioned but only in the Normal section. A request has been made by such letter for converting six posts of Assistant Teachers from the Normal section of the school to the Higher Secondary section.

Learned counsel for the State submits in support of the impugned order that in the absence of any sanctioned post in the Higher Secondary section of the concerned school, the prayer of the petitioner for a higher scale of pay cannot be granted.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have seen the documents on record. There are several admitted facts which would be evident from the documents annexed to the writ petition and not disputed by the respondents. First, the petitioner's salary was revised with effect from 1st September, 2010 in the post graduate scale of Rs. 6,000/- - 12,000/- by a communication from the Secretary of the School dated 22nd November, 2010. Second, the class routine at the relevant point of time shows that the petitioner was taking eight classes per week in classes XI and XII in the school in 2019. A later class routine shows that the petitioner was no longer permitted to take any class in the Higher Secondary section of the school. Third, the scale of pay which was enjoyed by the petitioner from 1st September, 2010 was revised and reduced all of a sudden by the school which would be apparent from the documents on record and also from the letter of protest of the petitioner dated 4th May, 2019. The staff pattern relied upon by the school in fact shows that out of four positions for Hindi in the Language group in the Normal section, three are in fact vacant and the petitioner is the only teacher having the requisite qualification to hold the post in the Language Section - Hindi. As has been pointed out by counsel, only three teachers are presently enjoying a post graduate scale of pay, out of which two teachers teach English and the third is the teacher in-charge of the school. From the staff pattern it is evident that although the teacher in-charge has been placed in the Language group, she has a post graduate degree in Commerce. The letter dated 9th July, 2019 sent by the school to the DI is also relevant in this connection. The letter records that the school does not require forty teachers to teach in the Normal section and further that appointments of teachers were approved under a Memo of 27th March, 1968. A specific request has therefore been made to the DI for converting six posts of Assistant Teachers from the Normal section to the Higher Secondary section so that the school can arrange its affairs better. The said letter also gives the names of six teachers who were teaching in the Higher Secondary section previously but all of who have retired as on 9th July, 2019 being the date of the letter. Out of the six teachers mentioned, there is at least one teacher who used to teach Hindi in the Higher Secondary section.

In the facts as stated above, several factors are evident, namely, that out of the four vacant positions in Hindi, only the petitioner was teaching that subject in the Higher Secondary section. Next, although the concerned teacher, one Kamini Jain, who was a teacher of Hindi in the Higher Secondary section, retired on 22nd April, 2003, no teacher with appropriate qualification for teaching Hindi in the Higher Secondary section has been appointed till date. The communication of the concerned authorities in taking requisite steps would be highlighted from the letter of the school dated 9th July, 2019 which categorically states that the school does not need forty teachers to teach in the Normal section. The respondents also do not have any answer as to why despite the retirement of Satwant Lal on 27th April, 2009, who admittedly had a post graduate qualification, the case of the petitioner for higher scale of pay was not favourably considered by the DI. The conduct of the school in revising the salary of the petitioner and justifying the same by not allowing her to take classes in the Higher Secondary section cannot be supported in the facts as stated above. There is also no reason given as to why despite the petitioner taking such classes from the date of her appointment was suddenly downgraded, while others including the teacher in-charge continued to enjoy a higher scale of pay.

It is to be noted that this is the third round of litigation by reason of three orders passed by the DI on 9th February, 2017, 28th March, 2019 and 12th April, 2019 respectively. The reason given in each of the three orders for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner is that the school does not have a sanctioned post in the Higher Secondary section in Language group. The other reason given in the order of 28th March, 2019 that the pupil teacher ratio in the school is not at par with the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is vague and devoid of particulars. It is unfortunate that despite being put on notice from the school itself that there have been no revised order/Memorandum of appointments after 1968, the DI has failed to take effective steps in that respect. It is also significant that despite the DI being of the view that there is no sanctioned post in the Language group in the Higher Secondary section of the school, the teacher in- charge admittedly is enjoying a higher scale of pay in the Language group although placed in the Normal section.

In the above facts, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by directing the DI to consider the case of the petitioner yet again since similar orders were passed on two occasions prior to the present proceeding. The impugned orders are therefore liable to be modified and the DI is directed to take expeditious steps to follow through with the letter of the school dated 9th July, 2019 in terms of sanctioning a requisite number of posts in the Higher Secondary section without any further delay. Since it is evident that the teacher who had been approved to teach Hindi in the Higher Secondary section retired way back in 2003 and there is no other teacher of Hindi presently in the said school except the petitioner, the District Inspector being the respondent no.3 is directed to accord a scale of pay to the petitioner which had been approved and given to the petitioner since May 2008 before revision of the same from September 2019 onwards. The school authorities will also ensure that the distribution of classes to the petitioner should be made expeditiously corresponding to the higher scale of pay in terms of this order.

WP 269 of 2019 is disposed of in terms of the above directions.