Madras High Court
R.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 5 December, 2018
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan, P.D.Audikesavalu
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.[MD]No.1480 of 2018
R.Kannan : Appellant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Omanthurar Government Estate,
Annasalai,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
3.The Joint Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary),
College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
4.The Joint Director,
(Vocational Education),
College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Madurai, Madurai District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
against the order of Writ Court dated 12.02.2018, made in W.P.
(MD)No.5296 of 2014.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil,
For Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
*********
JUDGMENT
*********** [Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.] The claim made by the appellant for sanctioning the incentive increment was negatived by the learned Single Judge on the ground that there is no Government Order extending the benefits of incentive increments to the Vocational Instructors. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the unsuccessful writ petitioner has come up with this intra-Court appeal.
2. The appellant was a Vocational Instructor. The appellant acquired the qualification in B.Ed., and M.Sc. The appellant submitted a representation for the grant of incentive increment. The appellant placed reliance on the Government Order http://www.judis.nic.in 3 in G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10 January, 1969 for his claim. The claim was rejected on the ground that the Vocational Instructors are not entitled to the benefit of incentive increments.
3. It is the contention of the appellant that M.Sc., in Maths and B.Ed., are higher qualifications and as such, irrespective of the post in question, whether it would be a regular teacher or Vocational Instructor, the Education Department must pay incentive increment.
4. There is no dispute that the basic qualification for the post held by the appellant is nothing but University Degree in Computer Science with one year Post-Graduate Diploma in Computer Application. The appellant took M.Sc., in Maths and B.Ed. The higher qualification prescribed for the first incentive is Post-Graduate Degree in the related subject.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant cited our attention to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.240, School Education (VE) Department, dated 18 August, 2010, in support of his contention that for the post of Vocational Instructor in http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Computer Science, B.Ed., is prescribed as a higher qualification for the grant of first incentive. Similarly, M.Ed., is shown as a higher qualification for the grant of second increment.
6. The claim of the appellant was essentially on the ground that he took M.Sc., (Maths) and that it should be construed as a higher qualification. There is no merit in the said contention. However, there is a case for the appellant, insofar as his qualification in B.Ed., is concerned. Even, for Vocational Instructor in Computer Science, B.Ed., is considered as higher qualification for awarding first incentive, or otherwise, two advance increments. In fact, in the order dated 18 December, 2008, in W.P.Nos.5787 of 2007, etc., batch, a learned Single Judge of this Court made it clear that the Vocational Instructors have to be treated as special teachers. We are, therefore, of the view that the claim made by the appellant for his higher qualification in B.Ed., should be considered, in the light of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 240, School Education (VE) Department, dated 18 August, 2010.
7. We give liberty to the appellant to submit a comprehensive representation to the Director of School Education for the grant of incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed., http://www.judis.nic.in 5 qualification. In case any such representation is given, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Director of School Education, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt.
8. The intra-Court Appeal is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
[K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.] & [P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.] 05.12.2018 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML To
1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Omanthurar Government Estate, Annasalai, Chennai-600 002.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
and P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
SML
3.The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary), College Road, Chennai-600 006.
4.The Joint Director, (Vocational Education), College Road, Chennai-600 006.
5.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.
Judgment made in W.A.[MD]No.1480 of 2018 Dated: 05.12.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in