Madras High Court
Arul Rani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 March, 2023
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020
and
WMP(MD)Nos.12717 of 2020 & 106 of 2021
Arul Rani : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
O/o.the Director of School Education,
DPI Compound,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
O/o.the Chief Educational Office,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
O/o.the District Educational Office,
Vedachandur,
Dindigul District.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020
5.The Correspondent,
St.Michel High School,
M.Ammapatti,
Dindigul District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
impugned proceedings passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.78/A2/2020,
dated 21.02.2020 and the consequential impugned order passed by the fourth
respondent in Na.Ka.No.909/A2/2020, dated Nil.09.2020 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
for R.1 to R.4
*****
ORDER
The petitioner is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher. At the time of appointment, she was having the qualification of B.Sc. and B.Ed. degrees. After such appointment, she obtained M.A and M.Phil degree and applied for incentive increments, stating that she has obtained additional qualifications. Accordingly, she was provided with incentive increments. The Department has now ordered for recovering the incentive increments holding that the petitioner is not eligible for any incentive increment for the M.Phil degree. Challenging the same, the petitioner has moved this Court.
2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020
2.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has obtained the additional qualifications (degrees) only after getting prior permission from the Department and the degrees were obtained only from Government recognized Universities. As per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.83, School Education Department, dated 28.04.2017, the petitioner is eligible for incentive increments and only after due verification by the Department, the petitioner was granted with incentive increments. There was no misrepresentation on her part. While so, without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order of recovery came to be passed. Therefore, he prayed for appropriate orders.
3.He has also relied upon the decision in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others [(2015) 4 SCC 334]; and Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar [(2009) 3 SCC 475].
4.Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioner has obtained additional qualifications of M.A. and M.Phil degrees. With regard to the grant of incentive 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020 increment for M.A. degree, there is no issue. Insofar as the M.Phil degree is concerned, since the petitioner is a Secondary Grade Teacher, the additional qualification obtained by her is not helpful to the students, to whom she is taking classes. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for any incentive for the M.Phil degree, however it was given to her on a misrepresentation. During Audit, the aforesaid discrepancy was found and therefore, orders have been passed to recover the same, since it is causing loss to the public exchequer.
5.He further submitted that there is no Government Order providing incentive increment for Secondary Grade Teachers for the qualification of M.Phil degree. Only B.T Teachers and P.G Teachers / Headmasters alone are eligible for incentive increment for M.Phil degree. This position has also been clarified by the Director of School Education vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.083158/K/E1/2009, dated 20.11.2015. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal.
6.He has also relied upon the following decisions in support of his case:-
i) Union of India and Another v. Narendra Singh [(2008) 2 SCC 750];
ii) I.C.A.R and Another v. T.K.Suryanarayan and Others, [AIR 1997 SC 3108]; and 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020
iii) Ram Binod Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others, [MANU/BH/0437/2007].
7.This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also to the materials placed on record.
8.The petitioner, who is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher, claims incentive increment for the M.Phil degree by relying upon the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.83, School Education Department, dated 28.04.2017 and G.O(1D).Ms.No.18, School Education Department, dated 18.01.2013.
9.On a perusal of G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 28.04.2017, it appears that the said order was issued in respect of Teachers belonging to SC/ST categories and appointed between the year 1997 and 2000. The petitioner neither claimed that she belongs to the said categories nor she was appointed between the year 1997 to 2000 and as such, she cannot take any shelter based on this Government Order.
10.On a perusal of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 18.01.2013, it appears that the same is applicable only in respect of Graduate Teachers. The petitioner is a 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020 Secondary Grade Teacher and as such, she cannot take shelter based on this Government Order as well.
11.In fact, the Director of School Education, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 083158/K/E1/2009, dated 20.11.2015, has clarified that Secondary Grade Teachers are eligible for the second incentive increment for their additional qualification in M.A. / M.Sc. / M.Ed. degrees and that the Graduate Teachers are eligible for the second incentive increment for their additional qualification in M.Ed. / M.Phil. / Ph.D. Degrees. The petitioner is, admittedly, a Secondary Grade Teacher and as such, she is not entitled for any increment for the M.Phil degree acquired by her.
12.The very basis for grant of incentive increment is to encourage the Teachers to acquire additional qualification, which would be useful for the students and for the improvement of the education system. The Government, by issuing various government orders, has provided incentive increments to the Teachers, based on the additional qualifications acquired by them, viz., B.Lit., B.A., M.A., M.Ed., etc. In fact, some of the Teachers were provided upto three incentive increments, but, later the maximum number of incentive increments has been restricted as two in their total service period.
6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020
13.An incentive is a concession granted by the Government to the Teachers to motivate them. Such concession can never be claimed as an absolute right and it is to be granted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the policy. Wrong sanctioning of incentive increment to any Teacher cannot be treated as precedent, nor it can be sustained. In the absence of any rule / order / provision for the grant of incentive increments for M.Phil degree to a Secondary Grade Teacher, the petitioner cannot claim it as a matter of right.
14.In fact, this Court in a batch of cases relating to recovery of incentive increments, in J.Maria James v. Director of School Education and Others [W.P(MD)No.12357 of 2020, etc., batch, dated 24.02.2023], has observed as follows:-
“23. ... A Secondary Grade Teacher, who obtained a M.A. Degree in Economics is provided with an incentive increment without noticing as to how he is going to transform his knowledge of M.A (Economics) to the Students who are studying upto fifth standard. This would lead to a situation where a Teacher who does not perform, but possess / obtain degrees is provided with incentive increments, whereas, on the other hand, a Teacher who is diligently discharging his duty with his performance and providing good results are not provided with any 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020 incentive increments. The incentive increments provided without assessing their performance / results would certainly demoralize the persons who are discharging their duty diligently.”
15.Such a situation has actually emerged in the present case. A Secondary Grade Teacher was provided with an incentive increment for the additional qualification of M.Phil., without noticing as to how she is going to transform her knowledge of M.Phil to the Students who are studying upto fifth standard. An incentive must be a reward to encourage a worker, who is performing better than the others. It must be depending upon the performance and not on possession of any degree alone.
16.Be that as it may, the Government has now realized that the incentive increments provided to the Teachers have not effected any results in the performance of the Students and has taken a policy decision not to provide any incentive increments hereafter, based on the additional qualifications acquired by the Teachers, vide G.O.Ms.No.116, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR- IV) Department, dated 15.10.2020. However, the incentive increments, which were provided already are not disturbed.
8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020
17.With regard to the violation of principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner, this Court feels that it is not a straitjacket formula and that each and every case has to be dealt with independently. Here, there is no rule / order / provision for the grant of incentive increments for M.Phil degree to a Secondary Grade Teacher. In the absence of the same, such incentives, which were obtained on a misrepresentation or by playing fraud, cannot be sustained and the ground raised by the petitioner in this aspect lacks merit. This Court feels it appropriate to refer to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard:-
i) Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab SEB, [2010 (13) SCC 216], wherein, it was held as follows:-
“33.There may be cases where on admitted and undisputed facts, only one conclusion is possible. In such an eventuality, the application of the principles of natural justice would be a futile exercise and an empty formality.”
ii) Bank of India v. Avinash D.Mandivikar [2005 (7) SCC 640], wherein, it was held as follows:-
“No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.” 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020
iii) Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India [2007 (4) SCC 54], wherein, it was held as follows:-
“27.It is also, however, well settled that it cannot put any straitjacket formula. It may not be applied in a given case unless a prejudice is shown. It is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise.
28.A court of law does not insist on compliance with useless formality. It will not issue any such direction where the result would remain the same, in view of the fact situation prevailing or in terms of the legal consequences. Furthermore in this case, the selection of the appellant was illegal. He was not qualified on the cut-off date. Being ineligible to be considered for appointment, it would have been a futile exercise to give him an opportunity of being heard.”
18.In view of the foregoing discussions and reasonings, this Court holds that the petitioner, being a Secondary Grade Teacher, is not entitled for any incentive increment for the additional qualification of M.Phil degree.
19.With regard to her plea that there cannot be any recovery, since she belonging to Group-C employee, this Court, in J.Maria James's case (cited 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020 supra), after elaborately discussing the facts of the case, relevant Government Orders and various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, has held as follows:-
“26.Insofar as the present cases are concerned, for the foregoing reasonings, this Court holds that the petitioners are not entitled for incentive increments for the B.Ed degree. Insofar as the orders of recovery are concerned, this Court, taking note of the decisions referred supra and the fact that the incentive increments for B.Ed degree were granted for more than five years, is passing the following directions:-
i) if the incentive increments were obtained by misrepresentation, the same is to be recovered;
ii) if the incentive increments were obtained by playing fraud with the connivance of the officials, the same is to be recovered;
iii) at the time of obtaining the incentive increments, if the petitioners gave an undertaking that the incentive increments can be recovered in future if they are found to be not eligible, then the same is to be recovered;
iv) if the petitioners do not fall in any of the above categories, then there cannot be any recovery as against them;
v) if the officials have, knowingly or unknowingly, allowed the petitioners to receive the incentive increments for more than five years, necessary action has to be taken as against those responsible;” 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020
20.Following the same and taking note of the fact that the petitioner belongs to Group-C class of employees, this Court is issuing the following directions insofar as recovery is concerned:-
i) if the incentive increment was obtained by misrepresentation, the same is to be recovered;
ii) if the incentive increment was obtained by playing fraud with the connivance of the officials, the same is to be recovered;
iii) at the time of obtaining the incentive increment, if the petitioner gave an undertaking that the incentive increment can be recovered in future if she is found to be not eligible, then the same is to be recovered; and
iv) if the petitioner do not fall in any of the above categories, then there cannot be any recovery as against her.
In the result, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 16.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
gk
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020
To
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
O/o.the Director of School Education,
DPI Compound,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
O/o.the Chief Educational Office,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
O/o.the District Educational Office,
Vedachandur,
Dindigul District.
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
WP(MD)No.15098 of 2020
16.03.2023
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis