1. The petitioners in all these petitions have sought for quashing of an endorsement issued by respondent No1 dated 30.6.2011, wherein the State Government has rejected the claim of the teachers for one increment for having passed the Kannada language examination working in aided schools. It is stated that, there is no qualification prescribed for the teachers in aided school to pass Kannada language examination and it was prescribed only for the Government servants i.e. Government teachers in these cases. As such, the teachers in aided schools being not the Government servants and there is no prescribed qualification of passing of the Kannada language examination, hence, the teachers in aided schools are not entitled for increments in pursuance of passing of Kannada language examination or having taken Kannada language in the SSLC examination.

2. Learned Government pleader submitted that the Rules of recruitment or the service conditions of the teachers in aided schools do not prescribe for passing of Kannada language examination by the teachers in aided schools and it is prescribed for the Government servants. As such, the teachers in aided schools being not the Government servants, said benefit cannot be granted to the teachers in aided schools. He also submitted that the teachers in aided schools are not treated on par with Government servants.3. To support his contention, he relied on the orders of this Court in WP No.976/2003 dated 12.1.2005, WP No. 26724/2005 dated 2.2.2006, WP No. 26056/2005 dated 7.2.2006, WP No.53940/2003 dated 18.7.2006 and WP No.1072/2006 dated 25.8.2010 and submitted that the State has granted incentives as a generous gesture to the Government servants who have passed the Kannada language departmental examination or who had Kannada language as a subject in the SSLC examination for the purpose of enhancing the administration in Kannada language. As such, said benefit was only extended to the teachers in Government schools. The teachers in aided schools being not the civil servants, are not entitled for the said benefit which is only extended to the civil servants/ Government servants. He further submitted that, if there are two conflicting views taken by this Court, the matter requires consideration by the Division Bench.

4. On the other hand, Sri. Rajashekar Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court in WP Nos.10543-51/2003 dated 8.9.2004 has held that additional increment is given to the Government servants for having passed the Kannada language examination and on the same analogy, there is no reason why the said benefit should not be extended to the teachers who have passed SSLC with Kannada language in aided school. He also relied on an order of the learned Single Judge reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2572 in the matter of ‘SUMITHRA P & ORS. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.’ and the order of Division Bench in WA Nos.4255/2009 and connected matters dated 25.3.2010 and WA No.369/2006 dated 8.11.2010 and submitted that this Court has held that there cannot be any discrimination and distinction between the Government school teachers and teachers of aided schools and both having the similar responsibilities and duties and discharging similar functions and also getting similar emoluments, even in case of incentives and increment, same is applicable to the teachers in aided schools. As such, the Government cannot discriminate amongst the teachers similarly placed only on the ground that one is a Government school teacher and another is a teacher in aided schools. The teacher in aided school is also paid same salary and same emoluments by the Government except for the fact that one works in aided school and another in Government school. Hence, he submits that the learned Single Judge of this Court, recently in WP Nos.19846-20413/2012 has held that the teachers of aided schools are also entitled for incentive or one increment on par with the teachers of Government schools who hav