(WPS Nos.4198/2019 & 4512/2019) 2026:CGHC:5063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4198 of 2019 Prabhash Kumar Joshi, S/o Late Bisahuram Joshi, Aged about 51 years, R/o Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Post & PS Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Block Education Officer, Block Belha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents AND WPS No. 4512 of 2019 Pravin Mishra, S/o Late Ramlakhan Mishra, Aged about 42 years, R/o New Sarkanda, Jabdapara, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Post & PS Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education Officer, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Block Education Officer, Block Belha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Panel Lawyer. SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.01.30 17:47:11 +0530 (WPS Nos.4198/2019 & 4512/2019) Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 29/01/2026 1. Since both these writ petitions involve common question of law and fact, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. By these two writ petitions, the petitioners have sought appropriate writ directing the respondents for grant of two advance increments in lieu of acquiring D.Ed. certificate at their own expenses after joining the service on the post of Assistant Teacher and after due permission from the State Government. Eventually, the petitioners have challenged the order rejecting the representation for grant of two advance increments. 3. Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the petitioners in both the writ petitions, would submit that the respondent authorities are absolutely unjustified in rejecting the representation by recording finding perverse to the record. 4. Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, learned State counsel, would submit that similar issue was considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.2051/2017 (Smt. Neelam Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), decided on 25-4-2024, and the writ petition has been dismissed against which Smt. Neelam Dubey, the petitioner therein, filed writ appeal being WA No.501/2024, which was also dismissed by the writ appeal court on 9-8-2024 and thereafter, she filed SLP (WPS Nos.4198/2019 & 4512/2019) before the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 2-7- 2025 passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No.24106/2025. As such, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner therein is not entitled for two advance increments in lieu of obtaining the degree of D.Ed. has become final and therefore the present two writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. In WPS No.2051/2017, the following was the question placed for consideration before the learned Single Judge: - “1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of two advance increments in lieu of acquiring B.Ed. Certificate at her own expenses prior to joining in service on the post of Assistant Teacher as also to quash the order dated 1.12.2016 (Annexure P/8), whereby, the State has denied the said benefit to the persons who were appointed after 16.6.1993.” 7. After due consideration, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing as under: - “7. The Recruitment Rules namely Madhya Pradesh Non- Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non-Collegiate Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973 have been amended on 16.6.1993 and earlier, D.Ed./B.Ed/BTI were not the necessary qualifications for appointment as Teachers/Assistant Teachers/Lecturers. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 27.1.1994 (Annexure P/2). In clause 6 of the said Appointment Order, it has been categorically mentioned that B.Ed./D.Ed./BTI were the necessary qualifications. In order to benefit the highly qualified teachers, who had obtained D.Ed./B.Ed/BTI at their own expenses, the State has formulated a Policy vide Circular dated 6.2.2007 for grant of (WPS Nos.4198/2019 & 4512/2019) two advance increments to them and after the amendment, the said qualifications were made necessary and prescribed as minimum qualification required for appointment on the post of Teacher. The State Government has not extended the benefit of two advance increment in lieu of passing the B.Ed./D.Ed./BTI Examination at their own expenses to those teachers who have been appointed after the said amendment i.e. 16.6.1993 and accordingly, the Circular/order dated 1.12.2016 has been issued, whereby, the Circulars dated 6.2.2007 and 12.3.2007 were set-aside. 8. In the second round of litigation i.e. in a bunch of Writ Appeals i.e. WA No.105/2014 and other connected Appeals, preferred by the State, in para 9 & 10 of the order dated 4.4.2014 (Annexure P/9), the said issue has been examined and in para 10, it has been categorically observed that the cut off date of appointment i.e. prior to 16.6.1993 mentioned in the first part of the Circular dated 6.2.2007 appears to be quite justified. So there is a rationality in the decision taken by the State Government as after the amendment, the qualification of B.Ed/D.Ed./BTI became necessary qualifications to get appointment on the said posts, however, earlier, the same were not necessary qualifications. 9. For the foregoing, this Court is of the view that merely because after the order passed by this Court on 4.4.2014 in WA No 104/2014 and other connected Appeals, respondents 5 & 6 have been awarded two advance increments, the petitioner cannot claim negative parity for grant of benefit which has been extended to them. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. Further, it is trite law that right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms.” 8. Thus, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition against which the petitioner therein preferred writ appeal and the Division Bench of this Court while affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ appeal by recording finding as under: - “9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No.2051 of 2005 vide order dated 25.04.2024, observing (WPS Nos.4198/2019 & 4512/2019) that The Recruitment Rules namely Madhya Pradesh Non- Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non-Collegiate Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973 have been amended on 16.6.1993 and earlier, D.Ed./B.Ed/BTI were not the necessary qualifications for appointment as Teachers/Assistant Teachers/Lecturers. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was appointed on 27.1.1994. In clause 6 of the said Appointment Order, it has been categorically mentioned that B.Ed./ D.Ed./BTI were the necessary qualifications. In order to benefit the highly qualified teachers, who had obtained D.Ed./ B.Ed/BTI at their own expenses, the State has formulated a Policy vide Circular dated 6.2.2007 for grant of two advance increments to them and after the amendment, the said qualifications were made necessary and prescribed as minimum qualification required for appointment on the post of Teacher. The State Government has not extended the benefit of two advance increment in lieu of passing the B.Ed./D.Ed./BTI Examination at their own expenses to those teachers who have been appointed after the said amendment i.e. 16.6.1993 and accordingly, the Circular/order dated 1.12.2016 has been issued, whereby, the Circulars dated 6.2.2007 and 12.3.2007 were set-aside. Further, in the second round of litigation i.e. in a bunch of Writ Appeals i.e. WA No.105/2014 and other connected Appeals, preferred by the State, in para 9 & 10 of the order dated 4.4.2014, the said issue has been examined and in para 10, it has been categorically observed that the cut off date of appointment i.e. prior to 16.6.1993 mentioned in the first part of the Circular dated 6.2.2007 appears to be quite justified. So there is a rationality in the decision taken by the State Government as after the amendment, the qualification of B.Ed/ D.Ed./BTI became necessary qualifications to get appointment on the said posts, however, earlier, the same were not necessary qualifications. Learned Single Judge further held that merely because after the order passed by this Court on 4.4.2014 in WA No 104/2014 and other connected Appeals, respondents 5 & 6 have been awarded two advance increments, the writ petitioner cannot claim negative parity for grant of benefit which has been extended to them. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. Further, it is trite law that right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein.” (WPS Nos.4198/2019 & 4512/2019) 9. Against the dismissal of writ appeal, an SLP was preferred by Neelam Dubey and the same has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 2-7-2025 by holding as under: - “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.” 10. As such, this Court in Single Bench has clearly held that prior to appointment in service on the post of Assistant Teacher, the persons who were appointed after 16-6-1993 would not be entitled for the benefit of two advance increments in lieu of acquiring B.Ed./D.Ed. Certificate on their own expenses. The said finding has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal and further by the Supreme Court in SLP. As such, though the petitioners were appointed after 16-6-1993, but in view of the aforesaid decisions, they will not be entitled for two advance increments, as the same principle would apply and thus, I am not inclined to entertain these writ petitions. 11. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Soma