Madras High Court
J.Alexandria Remy Jhansi Rani vs The District Elementary Educational ... on 8 December, 2015
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.12.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.(MD)No.21895 of 2015
J.Alexandria Remy Jhansi Rani .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Correspondent,
Antony's R.C.Middle School,
Puthukinathanvilai, Pitchivilai,
Thoothukudi District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.149/A1/2015 dated 18.03.2015 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to sanction incentive increment for M.Sc.Degree and confer all
the consequential benefits.
!For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
^For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar,
Government Advocate for R1 and R2
:ORDER
The petitioner possessed the B.Sc. and B.Ed. qualifications at the time when she was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher. She also was in possession of Post Graduate degree, ie., M.Sc.(Botany). She claims incentive increment for her higher qualification, viz. M.Sc. When the same was claimed through the third respondent School, proposal sent by the third respondent school was returned by the second respondent on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to incentive increment. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order dated 18.03.2015 of the second respondent returning the proposal on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to incentive increment.
2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that at the time of joining the post as Secondary Grade Teacher, the petitioner was appointed on condition that she would not claim incentive increment for higher qualifications. In this regard, reliance is placed on G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department, dated 03.10.2002.
4.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
5.It is true that the petitioner was appointed in the Secondary Grade vacancy, while she did not possess the qualification for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. She possessed the qualification for appointment as B.T.Assistant. Since there was dearth of candidates possessing secondary grade qualification, the graduate trained candidates were appointed before 11.07.1995. At that time, such candidates were appointed on condition that they shall not claim incentive increment for possessing higher qualifications. In my view, the said condition would apply to possession of the degree and B.Ed., ie., the petitioner cannot seek for incentive increment for her B.Sc. and B.Ed. qualifications, while she was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher. But the petitioner cannot be denied incentive increment for acquiring post graduate degree in Science, viz., M.Sc. Botany. In my view, acquiring of such higher qualifications have to be encouraged for the benefit of the students. If the teachers pursue their studies and acquire more higher qualifications, the same would certainly benefit the students. Hence, incentive increments are given by the Government.
6.In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in G.Meenalochini v. Chief Educational Officer, Trichy, reported in (2014) 8 MLJ 746, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:
?9.If the petitioner is granted incentive increment for her degree and B.Ed.qualification, while she was holding the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, the same are not correct and the excess amount paid towards incentive increment for the degree and B.Ed., qualification shall be recovered and refixation shall be made. But it is not so.
10.On the other hand, the petitioner claims incentive increment for acquiring Post Grade Degree namely M.A. and M.Ed. The very purpose of granting incentive increment is to encourage the teachers to acquire higher qualification as the same would ultimately benefit the students. The knowledge acquired by the teachers by acquiring higher qualification is rewarded by way of incentive increment only for the benefit of the students.
The petitioner acquired Post Graduate Degree as well as M.Ed., qualification for which incentive increment was rightly paid. But unfortunately, the audit made objection as if the petitioner is not entitled to incentive increment for higher qualification, namely degree and B.Ed., which was a condition made at the time of appointment. Since the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher, due to the non availability of Secondary Grade qualified persons, a condition was imposed that the such teacher could not claim incentive increment for the Degree and B.Ed. qualification. But the same cannot be stretched to deny incentive increment for the Post Graduate degree and M.Ed., obtained by the petitioner for which, incentive increment were given in 1990 and 1999 respectively while the petitioner joined in service in 1987.?
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted similarly situated persons were granted incentive increment by G.O.(3D)No.13, School Education Department, dated 06.02.2015.
8.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the third respondent to re-submit the proposal to the second respondent, and the second respondent is directed to approve and sanction incentive increment to the petitioner, in the light of the observations made above. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
To
1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thoothukudi.
2.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District..