Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs P.Sarumathi on 1 April, 2024
W.A(MD)No.518 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.04.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESHKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A(MD)No.518 of 2024
and
CMP(MD)No.4089 of 2024
1. The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Nungampakkam,
Chennai-06.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni District.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District. ... Appellants
vs.
1. P.Sarumathi
2. Kanakku Velayee Amaravathi Ammal (KVA),
Girls Higher Secondary School,
Chinnamanur,
Theni District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 22.11.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.18350 of 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 8
W.A(MD)No.518 of 2024
For Appellants : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESHKUMAR, J.)
This appeal has been directed against the order of the Writ Court
dated 22.11.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.18350 of 2020.
2. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner as a P.G. Assistant (Commerce),
challenged the order of the 3rd appellant who cancelled the advance incentive
increment granted to her for having undergone and secured an additional course
or qualification i.e., M.Phil degree from Vinayaga Mission University.
3. The reason for such denial of advance incentive increment, for
which, the writ petitioner was otherwise eligible, is because such M.Phil
qualification acquired by the teacher is from Vinayaga Mission University
which did not enjoy the recognition or approval of the University Grants
Commission.
4. However, the fact remains that during a particular period, the said
University had enjoyed the approval or recognition of the University Grants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Commission or IGNOU as the case may be, who are otherwise empowered to
give such approval or recognition to conduct distance education programme by
the University concerned.
5. This issue had been considered and decided by a Division Bench
of this Court in S.Sivan vs. The Regional Accounts Officer, Coimbatore and
others in a batch of writ appeals W.A.No.2328 of 2018 etc., batch., dated
04.08.2023, where one of us (R.SURESHKUMAR, J.) is a party.
6. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has considered this
aspect thoroughly including G.O(Ms).No.91, Higher Education Department,
dated 03.04.2009, and accordingly the benefit has been directed to be extended
to those who secured the higher qualification from that University from a
particular point of time where the University enjoyed the approval or
recognition of the University Grants Commission.
7. In fact, the Division Bench judgment cited supra in Sivan's case
has been applied by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment and allowed
the said writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Assailing the said judgment, Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional
Government Pleader for the appellants would contend that in G.O(Ms).No.91,
Higher Education Department, dated 03.04.2009, in paragraph 3, the following
has been stated by the Government:
''The Government have now examined the matter
in detail and hereby declare that the M.Phil and Ph.D
degrees obtained through the Correspondence/Distance
Education/Open University System are ineligible for
Government appointments and appointment as Lecturers
in Colleges/Universities including self-financing colleges.''
9. Relying upon the import of the G.O(Ms).No.91, Higher Education
Department, dated 03.04.2009, learned Additional Government Pleader would
submit that even though G.O(Ms).No.91 was issued mainly declaring that the
M.Phil and Ph.D degrees obtained through the Correspondence / Distance
Education / Open University System are ineligible for Government
appointments, that covers not only the particular University from where the
teacher secured the M.Phil degree, but also all other Universities where such
degrees are awarded through correspondence education. Therefore, it should
have a universal application to all the candidates like the writ petitioner.
Therefore, to that extent, he wants to distinguish the said judgment of the
Division Bench judgment in Sivan's case (cited supra).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. We are not impressed with the said submission made by the
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants for the
simple reason that the Division Bench has specifically considered the import of
G.O(Ms).No.91, Higher Education Department, dated 03.04.2009 at paragraphs
33 and 34 of the judgment in Sivan's case (cited supra) and has held as
follows:-
''33. In this context, the learned Government
Pleader appearing for the State has relied upon the
G.O.Ms.No.91, Higher Education Department, dated
03.04.2009 and has stated that the Government by the
said G.O, declared that the M.Phil and Ph.D degree
obtained through the correspondence or Distance
Education or Open University system are ineligible for
Government appointments and appointment as lecturers
in colleges or Universities including self-financing
colleges, therefore the import of the said G.O.Ms.No.91,
dated 03.04.2009 if it is implemented that will stand in
the way for extending the benefit of advance incentive
increment to the teachers.
34. However, the said submission made by the
learned Government Pleader is liable to be rejected
because, the said G.O has only mentioned about the
eligibility for a person to get employment. Here, the
teachers, as per earlier qualification acquired already,
been appointed as teachers or lecturers and the benefit
now questioned is only the grant of advance incentive
increment for having acquired the higher qualification.
Therefore, the G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 03.04.2009 issued by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Higher Education Department does not deal with
anything about the allowing of advance incentive
increment to the teachers, who acquired higher
qualification, therefore, that argument made by the
learned Government Pleader also is to be rejected and
accordingly, it is rejected.''
11. Therefore, the said consideration which was made by the Division
Bench in Sivan's case (cited supra) is pertaining to the degree secured by many
candidates from Vinayaga Mission University during the relevant point of time
through correspondence education whether would be entitled to seek for
advance incentive increment or not. Therefore, the declaration what has been
made under G.O(Ms).No.91 cannot be applied to the case of advance incentive
increment seekers like the writ petitioner/1st respondent. Therefore, such an
argument advanced by the learned Additional Government Pleader is to be
rejected and accordingly rejected.
12. Resultantly, since the issue is covered by the said Division Bench
judgment in Sivan's case, the order passed by the Writ Court which is
impugned herein dated 22.11.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.18350 of 2020 is to
be sustained. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is to be rejected and hence it is
dismissed. No costs. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, the direction
given by the Writ Court through the impugned order shall be complied with by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
01.04.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
1. The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Nungampakkam,
Chennai-06.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni District.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESHKUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
bala
01.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
