JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, G.J. (Oral): This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 7-1-2005 in Writ Petition No. 40315 of 1999 (Srinivas v State of Karnataka and Others1) which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the second respondent in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein. The first respondent joined the services of the Karnataka Electricity Board (present Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited) as a Junior Assistant in its 'O' and 'M' Division, Hubli, in the year 1977. As per Annexure-B, order dated 5-9-1975, the Karnataka Electricity Board had accorded sanction to grant four advance increments to the employees on securing additional/higher qualifications as detailed in the Annexure to the said order without prejudice to their normal increments. As per the Annexure to the said order, a Junior Assistant/Typist is entitled to four advance increments if he acquired "a Degree in Commerce or Arts or Science of a recognised University". Later as per Annexure-C, order dated 23-10-1977, the Karnataka Electricity Board directed that a Junior Assistant/Typist will be entitled to only two advance increments on his acquisition of a Degree in Commerce or Arts or Science of a recognised University. The first respondent passed B.A. Music final examination held in May 1979. Thereupon, he submitted Annexure-D representation dated 10-10-1991 to the Superintending Engineer, 'C' and 'M' Circle, Karnataka Electricity Board, Hubli, bringing to his notice that he had passed B.A. Music, Part-III Examination conducted by the Karnataka University, Dharwad, in the month of May 1979 and requesting to sanction advance increments to him. Along with Annexure-D representation, the first respondent enclosed copies of CD Special Certificate issued by the Karnatak University, Dharwad; (ii) Certificate of Marks; and (iii) Degree passing Certificate issued by the Karnatak University, Dharwad. Annexure-D representation was forwarded by the Superintending Engineer to the Chief Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Board along with Annexure-E, letter dated 26-10-1991. In Annexure-E, letter, it is stated that as per the order dated 25-10-1977 of the Karnataka Electricity Board, sanction of advance increment is permissible to Junior Assistants who have passed a Degree in Commerce or Arts or Science and that the Bachelor of Music is not included among the qualifications, on the acquisition of which, advance increment could be granted. In Annexure-E, letter, it is stated that as per the order dated 25-10-1977 of the Karnataka Electricity Board, sanction of advance increment is permissible to Junior Assistants who have passed a Degree in Commerce or Arts or Science and that the Bachelor of Music is not included among the qualifications, on the acquisition of which, advance increment could be granted. The Superintending Engineer also requested the Chief Engineer to pursue the matter with the Karnataka Electricity Board for considering whether Bachelor of Music also is a Degree equal to Science, Arts and Commerce for granting advance increments. The Superintending Engineer also observed that the request of the first respondent appeared to be genuine. However, though Annexure-G, letter dated 27-12-1991, the Secretary, Karnataka Electricity Board, informed the Chief Engineer that as per the existing provisions, the first respondent was not entitled for advance increments for acquiring a Degree in Bachelor of Music. Aggrieved by the denial of the advance increments, the first respondent filed the writ petition praying for quashing Annexure-G, letter dated 27-12-1991 of the Secretary, Karnataka Electricity Board and also for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of additional increments as the petitioner had obtained graduation from a recognised University. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition filed a statement of objections opposing the prayers in the writ petition. In paragraph 3 of the statement of objections, it was stated as follows.- "It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has not obtained degree in Commerce/Arts/Science, but he has obtained a Bachelor Degree in Music. The University has issued the Certificate to the petitioner a Bachelor Degree in Music and not a Bachelor Degree in Arts. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the said Degree so as to take the benefit under the Circular". 4. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Single Judge held that a Degree in Music, a Degree in Arts and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the advance increments. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the said Degree so as to take the benefit under the Circular". 4. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Single Judge held that a Degree in Music, a Degree in Arts and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the advance increments. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed declaring that the Degree in Music, which the petitioner has secured is a Degree in Arts and directing the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for payment of two additional increments from the date of his acquiring the additional qualification, namely, Degree in Arts (Music) and pay the same within three months from the date of the judgment. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the second respondent in the writ petition has filed this appeal. 6. We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Sriranga, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri KB. Adyapak who accepted notice for the first respondent and Mr. S.M. Chandrashekar, learned Government Advocate who accepted notice for the State of Karnataka. 7. It is not disputed that as per Annexures-B and C, a Junior Assistant/Typist of the Karnataka Electricity Board was entitled to two advance increments if he acquired the higher/additional qualification of a "Degree in Commerce or Arts or Science of a recognised University". Admittedly, the Karnatak University, Dharwad, is a recognised University. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the higher/additional qualification acquired by the first respondent is a Degree in Commerce or Arts or Science. According to the first respondent, the qualification acquired by him is a Degree in Arts. According to the appellant, the qualification acquired by the first respondent is not a Degree in Arts but only a Degree in Music. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that a Degree in Music cannot be treated as a Degree in Arts. 8. The first respondent had produced a Certificate dated 26-9-1991 issued by the Karnatak University, Dharwad, as Annexure-A. It reads thus: "Sri/Smt. Joshi Shrinivas Venkatesh passed the B.A. Music, Part-III which is a final year of the three years degree course Examination held by the Karnataka University in the month of May 1979 and was placed in the First Class". A photo copy of the Certificate dated 26-9-1991 is taken on record and kept in the file .. 9. A photo copy of the Certificate dated 26-9-1991 is taken on record and kept in the file .. 9. The first respondent has placed before this Court the original of a Special Certificate dated 26-9-1991 issued by the Karnatak University, Dharwad, which reads thus: "This is to certify that Sri/Smt. Joshi Shrinivas Venkatesh has passed the B. Music, Part-III Examination - the final examination held at the end of the three year Degree courses held by the Karnatak University, in the month of May 1979 with Regd. (Seat) No. 004 and was placed in First Class. He/she is eligible for conferment of the B.A. Music Degree at the next Convocation of this University". A photo copy of the said Special Certificate dated 26-9-1991 is taken on record and kept in the file. 10. Learned Counsel for the first respondent has also produced the original of the marks list dated 26-9-1991 issued by the Karnatak University, Dharwad. It shows that the first respondent has studied and passed English and Kannada as basic, Sitar (Theory and Practical) as major and Vocal (Practical) as minor. A photo copy of the said marks list dated 26-9-1991 is taken on record and kept in the file. 11. Learned Counsel for the first respondent also made available to this Court the printed syllabus of the Karnatak University, Dharwad, for the Third year of the 3 year B.A. Degree Course (Revised) B.A., Part-III Examination (with effect from the academic year 1975-76 and onwards). The said syllabus shows the subjects for studying in the third year of the three year B.A. Degree Course (Revised), Out of 33 Optional subjects, S1. No. 23 is Music and S1. No. 25 is Fine Arts. Therefore, it is obvious that a student who undergoes and passes III year B.A. Degree Course with Music as Optional subject is entitled to B.A. Degree. B.A. Degree means a Degree in Bachelor of Arts. Consequently, the petitioner who is entitled to the conferment of a Bachelor Degree in Music is entitled to be treated as a person entitled to a Degree in Arts. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the first respondent is entitled to advance increments as per Annexure-C, order. 12. Consequently, the petitioner who is entitled to the conferment of a Bachelor Degree in Music is entitled to be treated as a person entitled to a Degree in Arts. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the first respondent is entitled to advance increments as per Annexure-C, order. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. Ranga Swamy V Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others1, to contend that this Court cannot consider whether the qualification acquired by the first respondent is the required qualification for grant of advance increments. We have carefully perused the judgment. In our view, the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. In the case before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that for efficient discharge of the duties of the post of Professor in Radiological Physics, the Diploma in Radiological Physics (as applied in Medicine) fro the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre held by him was more relevant than a doctorate in Nuclear Physics, which the respondent before the Supreme Court desired. Rejecting the said contention, the Supreme Court held that it is not for the Court to consider the relevancy of qualifications prescribed for various posts. In this case, the Court is not considering the relevance of a particular qualification for a particular post or the sufficiency or suitability of a qualification for a particular post. This Court is called upon only to decide whether the qualification acquired by the first respondent is the same qualification which the appellant prescribed in Annexure-C for the purpose of grant of advance increments. We have only held that the qualification acquired by the first respondent is the same qualification which the appellant prescribed in Annexure-C. Hence the view taken by us in the earlier paragraph is not contrary to or in violation of what was held' by the Supreme Court in the case mentioned above. 13. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in H.P. Gupta and Another v Union of India and Others1. We have carefully read the judgment. We regret to observe that this case has absolutely no relevance to the facts of this case and therefore, we do not find it necessary even to refer to the facts or the dictum in the said case. We have carefully read the judgment. We regret to observe that this case has absolutely no relevance to the facts of this case and therefore, we do not find it necessary even to refer to the facts or the dictum in the said case. For the reasons stated above, we hold that there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed.