ORDER 1. Assailing the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.10997 of 2017, the writ petitioner is in appeal. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and entered into service of the respondent-department on 12.12.1980 as a diploma trainee in erstwhile M.P. State Electricity Board (MPSEB). He was given regular appointment on the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 12.3.1982. He completed AMIE which is equivalent to Bachelor Degree in Engineering and he was selected being a departmental candidate as a graduate trainee by order dated 24.7.1990. By order dated 16.5.1991, he was appointed as Assistant Engineer. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and he is still working as Executive Engineer but is getting the pay scale of Superintending Engineer under the scheme of Higher Pay Scale. The M.P. Electricity Board has bifurcated the companies and under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, there is protection given to the employees of successive companies that after their services were allocated to the successive companies, their service conditions which were applicable in MPSEB will not change to the detriment of their interest. The petitioner obtained degree of MBA (Finance) in December 2003 after taking due permission from MPSEB. He submitted an application for grant of two advance increments. The same was rejected by order dated 20.10.2016 which is the order impugned in the writ petition. 3. I t is the case of the petitioner that in terms of section III of Part B/Establishment, the employees are entitled to two advance increments on obtaining Post Graduate degree qualification in Engineering/Management/Finance/Computers or pass final examination of ICWA/CA/CS or acquire qualification of M.Phil Ph.D. after fulfilling necessary conditions. The petitioner has obtained the qualification of MBA (Finance) from IGNOU. Therefore, he has obtained the Post Graduate degree qualification, hence, entitled to two advance increments. 4. It is argued that the writ Court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the qualification of MBA (Finance) which was obtained by the petitioner is from a different stream and does not relate to the activities of the Board. The relevant clause which provides for grant of increments specifically speaks of the subject which should be related to the activities of the Board. The relevant clause which provides for grant of increments specifically speaks of the subject which should be related to the activities of the Board. It is argued that there cannot be any bifurcation between the Post Graduate degree qualification obtained. The increments are to be provided on obtaining the Post Graduate degree qualification. The word 'Finance' is included in the list and the petitioner has done management from 'Finance' subject, therefore, he is entitled for the same. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 6. The relevant clause which deals with grant of advance increments is Serial No.17 of section - III (Delegation of Powers - Increments) of Part B/Establishment which reads thus : "To grant one/two advance increments to the employees who obtain post graduate Diploma or post graduate degree qualification in Engineering / Management / Finance / computers or pass the final examination or ICWA / CA / CW or acquire the qualification of M.Phil.Ph.D., after fulfilling necessary conditions, provided the subject is related to activities of the Board." 7. From perusal thereof, it is apparently clear that the Post Graduate Diploma or Degree qualification should be obtained in a subject which is related to the activities of the Board. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as a Technical Officer in the respondent-department. The qualification of MBA (Finance) being a non-technical qualification, which is not related to the activities of the Board, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the authorities vide order dated 20.10.2016. 8. Counsel for the petitioner could not place any material to show as to how the qualification i.e. MBA (Finance) which the petitioner has obtained is in any manner related to the activities of the Board. The only argument which is advanced is that the employees of the respondent/department are being posted here and there, therefore, it cannot be said that they are particularly working in the technical field but the fact that the petitioner is a Technical Officer in the respondent-department could not be disputed by him. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the authorities in rejecting his claim for grant of two advance increments. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited unless the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are perverse. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the authorities in rejecting his claim for grant of two advance increments. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited unless the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are perverse. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order as the learned writ court upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by the counsels for the parties has dismissed the petition. Hence, no relief can be extended to the appellant. 9. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.