Lack of prior permission does not bar incentive increments for higher qualifications acquired before 2020 G.O. cancellation.

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.11670 of 2022, the present writ appeal is filed.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

3.The issue involved in this writ appeal has already been dealt with by this Court in W.A.(MD)No.570 of 2021 by an order dated 14.11.2025. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder for better ready reference:

“5. We have dealt with an identical issue in W.A.(MD)No.

570 of 2021 and by order dated 14.11.2025, accepted the case of identically placed faculty members, in the following terms:-

10.The grant of incentive increments is a laudable measure that was put in place by G.O.Ms.42, Education Department dated 10.01.1969, wherein the Government accepted, in principle, that incentive payments and awards should be granted to the teachers in schools who acquire higher educational qualifications. The proposal submitted by the Director of School Education to this effect was accepted and approved. The annexure to the said G.O., clearly indicates that the increments are to be given based on the acquisition of additional qualifications.

11.Thus, as early as in 1969, the State recognised the importance of teachers equipping themselves, as the quality of education imparted to students depends heavily on the educational competence of teachers. We must understand and interpret G.O.Ms.No.944, Education (D2) Department, dated 29.07.1989, in this context.

12.G.O.Ms.No.944, dated 29.07.1989, delegates powers to the Heads of various Departments to accord permission in respect of Government servants to join correspondence courses for acquisition of additional qualifications. In that G.O., after examining the request of the Director of School Education, the Government has delegated powers to the Director of School Education to accord such permission, subject to the condition that the acquisition of such qualification would be useful to the school, that there is no dislocation of work in the school concerned and that there is no additional expenditure to the Government.

13.As far as condition (i) is concerned, it states the obvious, as the acquisition of qualification would certainly result in an upswing in the quality of the education provided. The reference to additional expenditure appears to be superfluous as the purpose of the G.O is to reward a studious candidate. On the aspect of dislocation of work in schools, it is the school management who would be best positioned to comment. The school, has, in this case, accepted the entitlement of R1 on all fronts.

14.G.O.Ms.No.944 is a comprehensive order, setting out the delegation of work to educational officers in the District School Administration, both qua Government and unaided schools. The competent authority, as far as Government schools are concerned, for permitting the acquisition of higher educational qualifications is the Chief Educational Officer.

15.As far as unaided schools are concerned, the District Educational Officer is only to approve the permission granted by the Secretary or Correspondent of the concerned high and higher secondary schools to the teaching and non-teaching staff for acquisition of additional qualifications. In our view, such approval is a mere formality, as the request of the candidate to study further would no doubt have been scrutinised by the Correspondent/Secretary/School Management and once accepted, must not be second guessed.

16.In D.Beulah Rajaselvi Vs. the District Educational Officer and others [W.A(MD)No.207 of 2024, dated 27.02.2024], useful reference to be made to paragraphs 6 and 7, reading as follows:

6. G.O.Ms.No.944, Education (D2) Department, dated

29.07.1