JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) 1. Heard and gone through the record. 2. Appellants had been appointed as ad hoc trained graduate teachers in a Government High School in the year 1984. In the year 1995, services of ad hoc teachers were regularized. The policy of regularization provided that only those teachers would be regularized, who possessed the minimum prescribed qualifications for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs). It may be stated that petitioners were appointed as TGTs on ad hoc basis. Petitioners did not fulfill the requisite qualification for appointment as TGTs inasmuch as, they had not passed examination of English subject upto B.A. level. There were several other ad hoc TGTs, who too did not fulfill the condition of prescribed qualification. So, the government relaxed the policy of regularization in case of such teachers, subject to certain conditions, and one of the conditions was that they shall not be entitled to future increments, untill they passed the examination upto B.A. level in English subject. In relaxation of the scheme, petitioners services were regularized, vide order dated 31st October, 1995, subject to the aforesaid condition. 3. Petitioners filed writ petition in this Court, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to release annual increments, even though they had not passed the examination in English. That writ petition has been dismissed, vide impugned order dated 19th July, 2010, with the reasoning that since the regularization of the services of the petitioners was subject to the condition that they will not be entitled to future increments untill they passed B.A. examination in English and they having not passed such examination are not entitled to increments. 4. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as also learned Assistant Advocate General and perused the record. 6. Above stated factual position is not in dispute. Petitioners and similarly situated TGTs are supposed to teach English subject to the students from 6th to 10th classes. Petitioners being not even graduates in English, cannot be said to be eligible to teach English subject to the students of the aforesaid classes. They were just ad hoc appointees. Their ad-hoc appointments were regularized by way of a special concession to them. Petitioners being not even graduates in English, cannot be said to be eligible to teach English subject to the students of the aforesaid classes. They were just ad hoc appointees. Their ad-hoc appointments were regularized by way of a special concession to them. Policy of regularization provided for regularization of only those ad hoc TGTs, who possessed the minimum prescribed qualification, which included B.A. Degree with English as an elective subject. Some of the teachers including the present petitioners did not possess the qualification as they had not passed English examination in B.A. Thus, they were not eligible for regularization. The government came out with a further concession in their favour and regularized them, subject to the condition that they will be getting future increments only if they passed B.A. examination in English as an elective subject. Petitioners having failed to fulfill this condition, cannot be held to be entitled to the release of increments. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. However, it is clarified that as and when any petitioner/petitioners satisfy the aforesaid condition of passing B.A. examination in English as an elective subject, they shall be released all the increments due to them.