Madras High Court
S.Odeliarosali vs The Director Of Elementary Education on 23 July, 2012
Author: D. Hariparanthaman
Bench: D. Hariparanthaman
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23/07/2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.(MD)No.13088 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2009
1.S.Odeliarosali
2.Sebastiammal ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
3.Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Devakottai - 630 302, Sivagangai District.
4. The Correspondent,
St. John De-Britto Middle School,
Puliyal, Sivagangai - 630 31. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relation to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in
A.THI.MU.NO.1777/Aa2/09 dated 10.11.2009 and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially to direct the respondents to pay to the petitioners the
incentive increments for the higher educational qualification of M.Ed., degree
obtained by the petitioners.
!For Petitioners ... Mr.M. Ajmal Khan
^For Respondents ... Mr.V.Muruganandam
(R1 to R3) Addl.Govt.Pleader
:ORDER
The first petitioner was in possession of B.A and also B.Ed., at the time of appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher on 07.07.1995. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner was in possession of B.A and also B.Ed., at the time of appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher on 25.03.1985. Though the petitioners are having higher qualifications, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.539 Education (M1) Department, dated 21.04.1986, they were appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher.
2. The petitioners thereafter passed M.Ed., in the year 2000 and 2001 respectively. They claimed incentive increments for M.Ed., but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.11.2009 by the third respondent. Challenging the said impugned order, the petitioners have come before this Court by way of this writ petition.
3. The third respondent has filed a Counter Affidavit, refuting the allegations made by the petitioners.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.539 Education (M1) Department dated 21.04.1986, the petitioners could not seek for incentive increments for higher qualification viz., B.A., B.Ed.,, but they are not precluded from seeking the incentive increments for passing M.Ed. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, relied on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in R. PREMAKUMARI ..VS.. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2008 (5) M.L.J 1349).
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has strenuously argued that the petitioners, having agreed at the time of their appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher not to claim incentive increments for their higher qualification, cannot now be entitled to seek incentive increments.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader.
8. The petitioners were in possession of qualification for appointment to the post of B.T.Assistant, but, they were appointed only as Secondary Grade Teacher on 07.07.1995 and 25.03.1985 respectively pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.539 Education (M1) Department dated 21.04.1986.
9. The relevant portion from the said Government Order is extracted hereunder:-
"(2)(iii) B.T., or Tamil Pandits appointed to a Secondary Grade Teachers vacancy shall be eligible to draw the Scale of Pay as applicable to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and that they are not eligible to draw any incentive increments or higher scale of pay by virtue of their possessing higher qualification etc."
10. As per the aforesaid Government Order, the petitioners are not entitled to claim incentive increments for their higher qualifications viz., B.A., B.Ed., The B.T. Assistants shall not be appointed against the Secondary Grade vacancy. In view of the dearth of qualified persons, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.539 Education (M1) Department, dated 21.04.1986, B.T. Assistants were appointed in Secondary Grade Post. The Government Order contemplates that the B.T or Tamil Pandits appointed to a Secondary Grade vacancy shall not claim incentive increment for higher qualification viz., graduation and B.Ed.,
11. In this case, the petitioners are not claiming incentive increments for B.A., and B.Ed., On the other hand, they are claiming incentive increment for M.Ed., which they studied after they joined as Secondary Grade Teachers. Hence, in my considered view, the impugned order, which refuses to grant incentive increments, on the ground that the claim for incentive increment is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.539 Education (M1) Department dated 21.04.1986, has no basis.
12. Further more, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in R. PREMAKUMARI's case (cited supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that even the teachers who acquired higher qualification at the time of appointment is entitled to incentive increments. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder in this regard:-
"9. That apart, if the relevant G.Os are examined carefully, it can be safely concluded that the G.Os in reality do not intend to lay down in the manner it has been now concluded by the learned Single Judge. We have already extracted the relevant portions of the G.Os. The underlined portion of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1969 indicates that if a person possessing higher qualification enters into service, his initial pay may be fixed by giving advance increments. Similarly, in the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.08.1986, paragraph 2 makes it clear that "the P.G. teachers and Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools who possess or acquire Post Graduate qualification in education i.e., M.Ed., Degree shall be granted two advance increments in the scales of pay admissible to them". It is nowhere contemplated in the G.Os that the incentive increments would be given only to those who acquired subsequently the qualification, but it would be given to all those who either possess, which means the degree is obtained at the time of entering into service or acquire, which means the degree is obtained after entering into service. Even the subsequent G.Os or the clarifications, nowhere indicate that in order to be eligible for getting incentive increment, the person has to acquire such higher qualification only after entering into service and not otherwise. Therefore, we are unable to accept the conclusion of the learned single Judge that a person who enters into service after having acquired a higher qualification, is not entitled to get incentive increments."
Applying the above said principle, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
13. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.11.2009 is quashed and the respondents are directed to grant incentive increment to the petitioners for having passed M.Ed., degree within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
mpk To
1. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
3.Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Devakottai - 630 302, Sivagangai District.