4 2288..0099..22002266 Court No. 652 D.Hira WPA 2456 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2026 Dipankar Bagui Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury, Ms. Pritha Biswas, Ms. Upasana Sarkar. … for the petitioner Mr. Loknath Chatterjee, Ms. Mary Datta. … for the State 1. An order of the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Hooghly dated 31st January, 2025, thereby rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for grant of post graduate scale of pay is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 2. The ground for rejection of petitioner’s prayer as above, by the said respondent, inter alia, is on the basis of Clause 3 of the Government Notification No. 593-SE (B) dated November 27, 2007. 3. It appears that by filing its report/instruction the said respondent has added a further ground of operation of amended Section 14(3) of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 which, according to the said respondent prevents for grant of any benefit to the petitioner as prayed for. 4. It appears from the record that the petitioner after having entered into service in 2011 as an Honours/Post graduate category teacher, subsequently enhanced his qualification with M.Sc 2 degree in the subject ‘Physics’, in the year 2021. According to the petitioner, he enrolled himself of M.Sc. Physics course with the Vidyasagar University through Distance Education Mode upon due permission of the school authority. 5. Therefore, after completion of the post graduate degree course, the petitioner has sought for grant of post graduate scale of pay to him. 6. It is noted that in the said impugned order dated 13th January, 2025, the petitioner was found not to be entitled to get post graduate scale of pay in terms of para 2 and 3 of the Government Notification No. 593- SE (B) dated November 27, 2007. 7. However regarding applicability of notification dated November 27, 2007, this Court in various orders including in the judgment by the Hon’ble Larger Bench in Utpal Kanti Karan’s case (Utpal Kanti Karan vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) has held that applicability of notification dated November 27, 2007 would be limited in view of the same having no statutory force. 8. Instead, the petitioner should be governed under the rules existing at the relevant point of time. 9. It further appears that at the time of hearing of the writ petition, the said respondent comes up with the further ground that the petitioner’s prayer is not legible to be allowed in view of the amended provision of Section 14(3) of the 2005 Act. 10. Such contention of the respondent authority is not acceptable inter alia, for two reasons. Firstly, that in 3 accordance with law settled, the respondent authority should not be permitted to plead additional ground than it has initially pleaded for the first time, in order to fortify its decision further (Mohindar Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405). Secondly, it appears that the petitioner who was appointed as an Honours/Post graduate category teacher, cannot be considered to be restrained under the amended provision of Section 14(3) of the 2005 Act as pleaded by the said respondent. 11. Therefore, since the grounds pleaded by the respondent authority to reject petitioner’s prayer for higher scale of pay, amount to be unsustainable in the eye of law in the manner as discussed above, this Court finds it proper to set aside the order of the respondent District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Hooghly dated January 13, 2025, as challenged in the instant writ petition. 12. Let the matter of grant of post graduate scale of pay to the petitioner be remanded back to the said respondent authority that is, District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Hooghly for its consideration afresh and decision, on the basis of the settled law as well as the statutory provisions and provisions of rules as applicable. 13. Let the said respondent afford opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and pass a reasoned order, positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 4 14. Needless is to mention that in case the respondent authority finds the petitioner’s prayer to be legible and allows the same, all necessary consequential steps should immediately be taken by the said respondent. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, WPA No. 2456 of 2025 is disposed of. 16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)