Madras High Court
The Joint Director Of School ... vs S.Vasugi : Ist on 24 July, 2023
2023/MHC/3338
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRVARTHY
W.A(MD)NO.1124 OF 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8613 of 2023
1.The Joint Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary),
College Road,
Chennai -6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thanjavur
Thanjavur District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Thanjavur
Thanjavur District. :Appellants/Respondents 1 to 3.
.vs.
1.S.Vasugi : Ist Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Secretary,
Kalyana Sundaram Higher Secondary School,
Thanjavur – 613 009,
Thanjavur District. :2nd Respondent/4th Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.14009 of 2021, dated 09.06.2022.
For Appellants :Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
Addl.Govt.Pleader
For Respondent-1 :Mr.T.Ponkumar
JUDGMENT
*********
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the Learned
Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition filed by the first
respondent/Writ Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.14009 of 2021.
2.The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ Appeal reads
as follows:
The first respondent/Writ Petitioner is a Teacher and she filed
the above Writ Petition challenging the order by which the claim
for incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification was
rejected by the Joint Director of School Education and subsequently
by the Chief Educational Officer.The application for incentive
increment was rejected by the Joint Director of School Education
and subsequently by the District Educatioal Officer by order, dated
12.11.2019 and 20.12.2019 respectively. The application for
incentive increment was rejected only on the ground that the first
respondent had not obtained prior permission of the authorities for
undergoing higher education. Therefore,the learned Single Judge of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this Court, allowed the Writ Petition, following the view taken by
this Court by another Judge of this Court in J.Tamilrajan .vs.
Department of School Education and others passed in
W.P(MD)No.4019 of 2018. It is now admitted before this Court
the same view of this Court was affirmed in W.A(MD)No.813 of
2021 in the case of The Director of School Education,DPI
Campus, College Road, Chennai -6 .vs. G.Anandhi, dated
16.4.2021.
3.This Court find that the issue is no-more resintegra in view
of the several judgments on this issue holding that the claim of
teahers for incentive increment cannot be rejected on the ground
that the concerned teacher had not obtained prior permission of
the authorties for undergoing higher education. Since the issue has
been settled by precedents, this Court is unable to countenance
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.
It is true that there are several Government Order which
have insisted the requirement of permission of the educational
authorities for a teacher to undergo higher education. It is to be
noted that the payment of incentive increment for acquiring
higher qualification is to encourage the teachers to acquire higher
qualification so that the quality of education will be higher. It may
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be true that the teacher while in service will have to obtain prior
permission as per the Government Orders . Further it is to be noted
that acquiring higher qualification while in service is not prohibited
and it is only regulated. In such circumstances, aquiring higher
qualification while in service without the permission is only an
irregularitiy and that will not entitle the respondents to reject the
benefit to the teachers.
4.Considering the overall policy of the Government,there is no
reason to take a different view as expressed by the learned Single
Judge.The decision relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the
subject-matter in issue has been subsequently affirmed by the
learned Division Bench of this Court. Hence this Court finds no meirt
in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. The
appellants are directed to comply with the direction of the learned
Single Judge within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
recript of a copy of this judgment. Consequently connected
Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
[S.S.S.R.,J.] [D.B.C.,J.]
24.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
vsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)NO.1124 OF 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8613 of 2023
24.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
