IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
S. Ponnusamy - Appellant
Versus
Director General of Police, Chennai - Respondent
W.P. No. 8015 of 2025, W.M.P. No. 8985, 8986 of 2025
Decided On : 19-03-2025
ORDER :
1. The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records of the second respondent's proceeding dated 24.04.2021 raising audit objection to the grant of incentive to the petitioner, who is working as B.T. Assistant in Government High School, Pandian Nagar, Tirupur for the M.Phil Degree obtained by the petitioner through correspondence from Periyar University.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been contended that the petitioner had initially joined as B.T. Assistant in Panchayat Union Middle School in N.Kancheepuram, Tirupur. The petitioner's services were regularised on 01.06.2006. The petitioner was granted selection grade on and from 31.05.2016. Thereafter, petitioner obtained permission to pursue M.Phil degree from Periyar University in correspondence. She also acquired M.Phil and she had been granted second incentive. Later, audit objections had been raised since the petitioner had studied M.Phil through correspondence and not through regular system. Questioning that particular objection, the writ petition has been filed.
3. The issue is no longer res integra. The issue has been examined by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein, by an order dated 04.08.2023, in W.A.No.2328 of 2018 and batch of cases, the Division Bench 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 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.
35. In the result, the following orders are passed in these writ appeals:
● That the impugned order passed by the writ Court dated 06.09.2018 is set aside. As a sequel, the impugned order that was challenged before the Writ Court in the respective petitions is also set aside to the extent that those teachers who had studied in the Vinayaka Mission's University during the relevant point of time i.e., 2007 to 2009 since had acquired the qualification during the period which the University also enjoyed the approval or recognition from the DEC, IGNO, the said objection raised by the audit Department would not be sustained. Therefore, on that ground, the incentive increment already allowed to these teachers need not be disturbed. If the increment already been allowed to these teachers have been cancelled or stopped by virtue of the order, which is impugned herein, the same shall be restored and the arrears to that effect shall be calculated and be paid to the teachers/appellants. To that extent, all these writ appeals are allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
Following the judgment of the Division Bench, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 30.01.2025, in W.P.No.37180 of 2024 had held as
The eligibility for employment does not preclude the grant of incentive increments for higher qualifications obtained through correspondence by teachers.
The court affirmed that teachers are entitled to incentive increments for higher qualifications, regardless of prior permission for study mode.
Incentive increments for teachers cannot be denied based on the mode of degree acquisition, as prior permission for higher education is a regulatory requirement, not a disqualifying factor.
Incentive increments for teachers cannot be denied based on the lack of prior permission for higher education, as the policy aims to encourage qualification enhancement.
Distance education M.Phil degrees eligible for post-appointment teacher incentives, despite G.O. barring initial employment.
A teacher's qualification acquired through distance education cannot be a basis for denying incentive increments if obtained during the valid recognition period.
G.O.Ms.No.91 (2009) bars distance M.Phil for employment but not post-employment incentive increments for teachers with permission.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.