AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S.T.A. No. 5 of 2013
Pursuant to the earlier direction passed by this Court, Headmaster of Bharatpur High School (H.S.) is personally present before this Court and submits that the school authority has no objection to allow the appellant-petitioner to complete his M.P.Ed. degree but leave was not granted to complete the said degree in view of the order dated 27th November, 2007 issued by the School Education Department, (Secondary Branch), Government of West Bengal. Mr. Sadananda Ganguli, learned Advocate representing the State-respondents submits that in terms of the aforesaid order dated 27th November, 2007, no permission can be granted on any ground to any teacher who has entered the service with Graduate degree and with a graduate scale of pay. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid order dated 27th November, 2007 are set out hereunder:
No. 593-SE(B)
ES/O/B/1M-98/2007
Date: 27.11.2007
ORDER
****
****
The teacher is required to seek prior permission of concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) (only when he/she wants to claim additional increment/higher scale of pay etc. for obtaining such higher qualification) through the Managing Committee of the School.
Provided further that no such permission can be granted on any ground to any teacher who has entered the service/joined the school with Graduate Degree and with a graduate scale of pay [Any Managing Committee of any school recommending such case and of any District Inspector of Schools granting such prayer will be treated as an ''Offender'' under West Bengal Schools (Control Expenditure) Act, 2005.1
Mr. Bari, learned Advocate representing the appellant-petitioner submits that his client is not willing to claim any additional increment or higher scale of pay for obtaining such higher qualification at this stage and only wants to complete the M.P.Ed. course since the said appellant-petitioner before joining the school completed M.P.Ed. (Part-I) course and passed the said examination. The said appellant petitioner is only required to complete the Part-II course in order to obtain the M.P.Ed. degree.
For this limited purpose, appellant-petitioner prayed for granting leave so that the said appellant-petitioner can complete the M.P.Ed. course and acquire the said M.P.Ed. degree.
No ban can be imposed on any teacher to prevent him from improving his qualification. Without considering the validity and/or legality of Paragraph 4 of the office order dated 27th November, 2007, in this proceeding, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid office order does not put any restriction on a teacher in the matter of improving qualification unless the teacher concerned wants to claim the additional increments/higher scale of pay etc. for obtaining such higher qualification. No authority can prevent a teacher from improving his academic qualification since improvement of academic qualification of the teacher will not only benefit the teacher concerned but will also benefit the students whom the said teacher will ultimately teach after acquiring the higher qualification.
In the present case, appellant-petitioner does not claim any additional increments/higher scale at this stage which has been specifically submitted by the learned Advocate of the appellant-petitioner.
For the aforementioned reasons and considering the submissions of the Headmaster of the school concerned in presence of the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said school, we direct the Managing Committee of the school concerned to grant leave to the appellant-petitioner herein in order to enable the said appellant-petitioner to complete the M.P.Ed. course and appear at the M.P.Ed. final examination.
The permission granted by the Managing Committee should also be approved by the District Inspector of Schools concerned so that the appellant-petitioner may not have to face any difficulty to complete his M.P.Ed. course subject to condition that the said appellant-petitioner will not claim any additional increment for obtaining such higher qualification unless permissible in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, we modify the impugned order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge and dispose of both the application as well as the appeal upon treating the said appeal as on day''s list.
In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs. Let a xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates of both the parties on usual undertaking.