Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2821 (MAD)

R. Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2006-10-19

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

body2006
Judgment : 1. The petitioner was qualified for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant. However, he was selected and appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 1.6.1988. Admittedly, he had the qualification of a pass in B.Ed. Degree which is higher than the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. 2. Considering the higher educational qualifications possessed by the petitioner, he was granted incentive increments, taking analogy from various Government Orders, entitling Secondary Grade teachers to have incentive increments upon acquiring higher educational qualifications. 3. However, on an audit objection, the incentive increments granted to the petitioner were withdrawn and the excess amount paid was sought to be recovered by an order dated 9.4.1996. Challenging the said order of recovery and refixation of pay, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2272 of 1996 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. Upon abolition of the Tribunal, the said application was transferred to this Court in W.P.No. 18760 of 2006. 4. I have heard C. Selvaraj, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and V. Arun learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. C. Selvaraju, learned senior counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that when sufficient number of Secondary Grade Trained Teachers were not available for appointment, persons like the petitioner who were highly qualified with a degree in Education, offered their services to fill up the vacuum and that therefore they should not be deprived of the benefit of incentive increments for possessing higher educational qualifications. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that after the B.Ed. qualified candidates entered into service as Secondary Grade Teachers, the service conditions of all persons employed as Secondary Grade Teachers should be one and the same. While the Government Orders entitle the Secondary Grade Teachers to have incentive increments for acquiring higher qualifications, persons like the petitioner should not be deprived of the same, merely because they had acquired the qualifications before their entry into service. The learned senior counsel also contended that there cannot be a discrimination between persons who entered into service with a higher qualification and those who acquired the qualification while in service, for the purpose of grant of incentive increments. Such a classification, according to the learned senior counsel, had no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and hence amounts to hostile discrimination offending Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. Such a classification, according to the learned senior counsel, had no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and hence amounts to hostile discrimination offending Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to trace the history of the Government Orders providing for the grant of incentive increments to Teachers. 7. Under G.O.Ms.No. 42, Education Department dated 10.1.1969, the Government for the first time approved the proposal of the Director of School Education for the grant of advance increment to various categories of Teachers. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said Government Order reads as follows : “The Government have already accepted in principle the incentive payments and awards should be given to the teachers in schools who acquire higher educational qualifications. The Director of School Education has accordingly submitted proposals as indicated in Annexure to this order. 2. The Government approve of the proposals of the Director of School Education and direct that advance increments be granted to them, as indicated in the Annexure. 8. A perusal of the substantial portion of the said Government Order reveals that the Government decided to grant incentive increments to teachers for acquiring higher educational qualification in other words, the Government wanted to improve the standard of education and the quality of Teachers by providing an incentive to them. The Government thought fit to do so, on account of the fact the the grant of such increment alone would provide a impetus for Teachers to update and equip themselves. 9. Theaforesaid Government Order was followed by several other orders for the grant of incentive increments. At one stage, it was reported to the Government that sufficient number of Secondary Grade Trained Teacher were not available in the rolls of the employment exchanges for appointment as Secondary Grade Teachers. 10. Therefore, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 539, Education (M.1) Department dated 21.4.1986, accepting the appointment of the persons with B.T. qualification and Tamil Pandits to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers, though they were more qualified for appointment to the said post. 10. Therefore, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 539, Education (M.1) Department dated 21.4.1986, accepting the appointment of the persons with B.T. qualification and Tamil Pandits to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers, though they were more qualified for appointment to the said post. However, while doing so, the Government also accepted the suggestion of the Director of School Education that those persons possessing B.T. qualification or Tamil Pandit qualification, appointed to Secondary Grade Teachers post, shall be allowed only the scale of pay of the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and that they will not be eligible to draw any incentive increments or higher scale of pay by virtue of possession of higher qualifications. Paragraph 2(ii) of the said G.O.Ms.No.539 Education Department dated 21.4.1986 reads as follows : ‘2. In order to see that education of Children studying in such school does not suffer on account of dearth of Secondary Grade Trained Teachers and to give relief to the unemployed Teachers the Director of School Education has suggested that Government may pass orders permitting the appointing authority concerned to fill up the vacancies of Secondary Grade Teachers available in Government and Panchayat Unions by obtaining the list of B.T. and Tamil Pandit form the employment exchange when actually there are no Secondary Grade Trained Teachers available in the live register of employment exchange subject to the following conditions : (i) … (ii) … (iii) B.T. or Tamil Pandits appointed to Secondary Grade Teachers vacancy shall be eligible to draw the scale of pay as applicable to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and that they are not eligible to draw any incentive increments or higher scale of pay by virtue of their possessing higher qualification etc”. 11. It is only after the issue of the said Government Order, i. e. G.O.Ms.No. 539, Education Department dated 21.4.1986, the petitioner who possessed the B.Ed. degree got appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers. To put it in other words, the petitioners appointment was in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No. 539, Education Department, dated 21.4.1986 and was consequently subject to the conditions laid down in the said Government Order. 12. The aforesaid Government Order was followed by another order in G.O.Ms.No. 510, Education Department, dated 10.5.1989, permitting the regularisation of all Secondary Grade Teachers with B.T. and post graduate qualifications as Secondary Grade Teachers. 12. The aforesaid Government Order was followed by another order in G.O.Ms.No. 510, Education Department, dated 10.5.1989, permitting the regularisation of all Secondary Grade Teachers with B.T. and post graduate qualifications as Secondary Grade Teachers. While doing so, the Government reported that those persons will not be eligible for incentive increments or higher scale of pay by virtue of their possessing a higher qualification. Paragraph 6 of G.O.Ms.No. 510, Education Department, dated 10.5.1989 reads as follows : “6. The Government also direct that B.T. or Tamil Pandits appointed to the Secondary Grade Posts on contract basis and whose services are ordered to be regularised in paras 4 and 5 above shall be eligible to draw the scale of pay as applicable to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and that they are not eligible to draw any incentive increments or higher scale of pay by virtue of their possessing higher qualification etc.” 13. However, without reference to the aforesaid Government Orders, the petitioner was granted incentive increments for possessing higher qualifications and upon an audit objection, the incentive increments were withdrawn and his pay was refixed and recovery of excess was ordered. It is against the said proceeding, the petitioner had come up with the above writ petition. 14. As seen from the Government Orders, granting incentive increments to Teachers, the purpose of granting incentive increments is to enable the Teachers to update their knowledge and keep on enhancing their qualifications. In developed countries, all professionals including Teachers are compulsorily required to update their knowledge, even to enable them to continue in employment. The persons who fail to update their knowledge or pass the updating examination, are liable to lose even their jobs in developed countries. But as a welfare state, our State does not throw out employees for not updating their knowledge. This has resulted in a situation where all education stops at the entry point to employment. Entry into service, in our country, signals the end of education, which is very unfortunate. We worship Saraswathi, as the Goddess of Learning and yet we fail to draw inspiration from the fact that she holds a book on one hand, indicating thereby that she continues her learning process, for ever. 15. Entry into service, in our country, signals the end of education, which is very unfortunate. We worship Saraswathi, as the Goddess of Learning and yet we fail to draw inspiration from the fact that she holds a book on one hand, indicating thereby that she continues her learning process, for ever. 15. In order to overcome the situation, the Government issued the aforesaid orders, thinking that the grant of incentive increments will make Teachers study more and more and acquire higher educational qualifications. Thus, the purpose of grant of incentive increments as spelt out by the Government Orders, is to encourage the existing incumbents to acquire more qualifications. Therefore, the said benefit cannot be sought for by candidates who entered into service with a higher qualification. In so far as the candidates like the petitioner is concerned, they had a choice before them either to take up employment as Secondary Grade Teachers or to await their turn for appointment to higher posts. The petitioner has chosen to take up the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and hence his appointment in the year 1988 was naturally subject to the terms and conditions laid down under G.O.Ms.No. 42, Education Department, dated 10.1.1969 and G.O.Ms.No. 539, Education Department, dated 21.4.1986. Having accepted the appointment as Secondary Grade Teachers, subject to the terms and conditions contained in G.O.Ms.No. 539, Education Department, dated 21.4.1986, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the denial of incentive increment is discriminatory. The alleged discrimination did not arise after entry of the petitioner into service. It was a service condition subject to which he was appointed. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 16. On the issue of discrimination offending Article 14 of the Constitution it is seen that all the Government Orders providing for the grant of incentive increments are made applicable uniformly to all persons including the petitioner, if the petitioner acquires a higher qualification than the one that he possessed at the time of entry into service, he would also become entitled to incentive increments by applying the aforesaid Government Orders. The question of discrimination would arise only if the petitioner is denied a benefit, extended to other similarly placed candidates. A candidate who acquires higher qualification after entry into service cannot be treated as equal to a person who already possessed a higher qualification even at the entry point. The question of discrimination would arise only if the petitioner is denied a benefit, extended to other similarly placed candidates. A candidate who acquires higher qualification after entry into service cannot be treated as equal to a person who already possessed a higher qualification even at the entry point. After entry into service, all teachers are made eligible for incentive increments by the aforesaid Government Orders, subject only to one condition, namely that they should acquire a higher qualification after entry into service. Therefore the question of discrimination does not arise. 17. Lastly it is seen that an identical question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Harayana and others v. Sumithra Devi and others State of Harayana and others v. Sumithra Devi and others State of Harayana and others v. Sumithra Devi and others AIR 2004 SC 1050 : (2004) 12 SCC 322 ). In the said case, persons who were appointed with higher qualifications, claimed the benefit of a circular entitling those with lesser qualifications, for higher scale of pay, if they enhance their educational qualifications, during the course of service. Rejecting their claim, the Supreme Court held as follows : “The circular letter dated 9.3.1990 clearly states that a higher scale of pay would not be admissible to them despite holding a higher qualification having been appointed on a lower post. Such higher scale of pay was admissible only to such teachers/masters who had enhanced their educational qualification during the course of service. The petitioners, therefore, were not entitled to higher scale of pay. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that keeping in view the fact that persons having similar qualification are getting higher scales of pay, as such this Court should not interfere with the impugned judgment. The submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for more than one reason. As the persons who have been granted higher scales of pay enhanced their qualification while holding their offices they had been allowed to continue to get a higher scale of pay in view of the concession made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This Court, both in Wazir Singh and Kamal Singh Saharwal as indicated herein before, in no uncertain terms held that even such holders of such offices would not automatically be entitled to, on acquisition of a higher qualification, a higher scale of pay. This Court, both in Wazir Singh and Kamal Singh Saharwal as indicated herein before, in no uncertain terms held that even such holders of such offices would not automatically be entitled to, on acquisition of a higher qualification, a higher scale of pay. The petitioners, as noticed, already had higher qualification and thus not entitled to benefit of any circular whatsoever. 18. The case on hand is exactly identical to the one before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of incentive increments, for possessing higher qualification even at the point of entry into service, has no legal basis. Consequently, I find no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.