Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sushma Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1- WP No.1679/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
WRIT PETITION NO.1679/2021
Sushma Sharma w/o Apoorv Sharma & others vs. State of M.P & one
another
21.06.2021: (INDORE):
Shri D.N.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned Panel Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard through video conferencing.
Petitioners have filed the present petition challenging validity of
the order dated 14.09.20211 issued by the School Education
Department, State of M.P, Bhopal whereby the Teachers appointed
after 17.06.1993 have been denied the benefit of two advance
increments on account of passing the B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. degree.
According to the petitioners there is no basis for this hostile
discrimination among similarly placed Teachers. By the aforesaid
circular only the Teachers appointed prior to 16.6.1993 and having
B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. degree before entering into the service have been
held entitled to get the two advanced increments and second category
of Teachers those who entered into the service on or before 16.6.1993
without degree of B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. degree but acquired prior to
23.10.1964 at the Govt. expenses and in the third category the
Teachers who were appointed prior to 16.06.1993 who have acquired
the degree of B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. at their own expenses prior to
01.03.1999 are entitled for two advanced increments. All the
petitioners were appointed after 05.07.1993 and acquired the degree of
B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. either prior to entering into service or during the
service after the cut off date 01.03.1999. According to the petitioners,
there cannot be any discrimination among the Teachers when all have
acquired B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. degree either before entering into the
service or during the service even after 01.03.1999 for grant of benefit
of two advanced increments, hence such condition in a circular is bad
in law and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case
-2- WP No.1679/2021
of Y.K.Mehta & others vs. Union of India and another reported in
(2009) 7 SCC 724 and a judgment passed by the Chattisgarh High
Court in the case of Santu Ram Dehari vs. State of Chhatisgarh in
W.PS No.1949/2014.
Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for
the State submits that this controversy has been put into rest by this
Court in WPS No.631/2005 (State of M.P & another vs. Manoj Kumar
Sharma and another). Para-10 of the said judgment is relevant which
is reproduced below:
10. Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India for recruitment of teachers are known as Madhya
Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III Educational Service (Non College
Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973. The said Rules did
not prescribe the minimum qualification as B.Ed. or BTI. Latr on the
Rules were amended and qualification of training was included in the
Rules. The Rules were amended with effect from 17.6.1993 and for
lower division teachers, the qualification was re-classified to Higher
Secondary with BTI or B.Ed. Degree and for the post of lecturer, the
qualification was enhanced to graduation with B.Ed. Thus, the fixing
of a cut off date is proper as after amendment under the Rules in the
year 1993, the minimum qualification for entering into service is to
have educational qualification of either BTI or B.Ed., as the case may
be. Therefore, when the recruitment rules have been amended and the
minimum qualification for entering into service is B.Ed. Or BTI then
there is no question of grant of advance increments to the teachers
appointed after amendment in the recruitment rules. In the light of the
said amendment in the recruitment rules, the cut off date fixed by the
State is proper and relevant.
That the cricular dated 14.9.2011 is in force since last 11 years.
The petitioners are in employment since last more than a decade but
for the first time they are challenging the validity of the said circular.
However, similarly placed employees have approached this Court
claiming the benefit of two advanced increments on account of
acquiring B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. degree but the same has been denied by
this Court in the case of State of M.P vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma
-3- WP No.1679/2021
(supra). Even in the case decided by the Chhatisgarh High Court
(supra) only a direction was given to the govt. to consider the case of
the petitioners for grant of two advanced increments at par with the
Teachers who have passed B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. degree at the govt.
expenses. There is no material on record as to whether the govt. has
taken any decision in the said matter or not. In the circular the govt.
has specified that the Teachers appointed after 16.06.1993 and have
passed the examination of B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. degree shall not be
entitled for two advanced increments. The reason behind fixing this cut
off date was that from 16.6.1993 the govt. has made it mandatory the
qualification of B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. degree for appointment to the post
of Teachers. The Teachers who were appointed on or before 16.6.1993
were given 6 years time to acquire the qualification of
B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. degree up to 01.03.1999 in order to get the benefit of
two advanced increments at their own expenses. The govt. has also
clarified that acquiring a B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. degree at their own cost
means the Teachers have utilized their earn leave, half pay leave and
extra ordinary leave for acquiring the degree through part time course
or correspondence course.
I view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere in this
petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by HARI KUMAR
hk/ C G NAIR
Date: 2021.06.22 18:23:09 +05'30'
