Satya Narayan Gupta Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Satya Narayan Gupta Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of a higher scale of pay for acquiring the higher qualification of Bachelor Degree in Library and Information Science in terms of paragraph 16(3) of the Memorandum no. 33-Edn(B) dated 7th March 1990 (“said Memo”). +1 more

Court's answer

In view thereof, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the Division Bench judgment in Pradip Kumar Karak & Ors. (supra), the subsequent dismissal of the Special Leave Petition challenging it by order dated 24th September 2018, and the fact that the petitioner acquired the higher qualification after 21st July 1990, the petitioner can have no legal right to move the instant writ petition for enforcement of the terms of the said Memo.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.A. 24058 of 2014 (Satya Narayan Gupta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), decided 30.01.2024 by Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.: The petitioner, a librarian claiming the benefit of a higher scale of pay for acquiring a Bachelor Degree in Library and Information Science under paragraph 16(3) of Memorandum no. 33-Edn(B) dated 7th March 1990 (“said Memo”), had appeared in the BLISc examination in 2001 (University of North Bengal marksheet annexed to the writ petition), i.e., after the cut-off date of 21st July 1990. Taking note of the Division Bench judgment dated 4th May 2018 in Pradip Kumar Karak & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2018 (4) CHN (Cal) 131 – per which librarians acquiring higher qualifications after 21.07.1990 have no legal right to enforce the unamended paragraph 16(3) – and of the dismissal by order dated 24th September 2018 of the Special Leave Petition (C) no. 23314 of 2018 that had challenged that judgment, the single Bench held that the petitioner can have no legal right to move the instant writ petition for enforcement of the terms of the said Memo, and that no relief could be granted. The writ petition failed and was dismissed without any order as to costs.