(WPS Nos.6132/2019, 6131/2019, 6307/2019 & 6318/2019) 2026:CGHC:5213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6132 of 2019 Dinesh Kumar Shukla, S/o Shri Balkrishna Shukla, Aged about 56 years, Posted as Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Mahatma Gandhi Ward, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The District Education Officer, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 6131 of 2019 Sanjay Thakur, S/o Brijlal Singh Thakur, Aged about 54 years, Posted as Headmaster, R/o Rojgaripara, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The District Education Officer, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.01.30 17:47:11 +0530 (WPS Nos.6132/2019, 6131/2019, 6307/2019 & 6318/2019) WPS No. 6307 of 2019 Jagmohan Bhoyar, S/o Shri G.R. Bhoyar, Aged about 52 years, Posted as Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Jamkotpara, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The District Education Officer, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents AND WPS No. 6318 of 2019 Jayant Kumar Majumdar, S/o Shri Kalevar Majumdar, Aged about 50 years, Posted as Lecturer, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The District Education Officer, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 29/01/2026 (WPS Nos.6132/2019, 6131/2019, 6307/2019 & 6318/2019) 1. Since all 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 this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have sought appropriate writ directing the respondents for grant of two advance increments in lieu of acquiring B.Ed. certificate at their own expenses after joining the service on the post of Assistant Teacher and after due permission from the State Government. Further, the petitioners have also challenged the order dated 1-12-2016, whereby it has been ordered that the Teachers who have been appointed after 16-6-1993 are not entitled for grant of two advance increments. 3. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that the respondent authorities are absolutely unjustified in not granting two advance increments in lieu of acquiring B.Ed. certificate. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, 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 before the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 2-7- (WPS Nos.6132/2019, 6131/2019, 6307/2019 & 6318/2019) 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 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 (WPS Nos.6132/2019, 6131/2019, 6307/2019 & 6318/2019) 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 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 (WPS Nos.6132/2019, 6131/2019, 6307/2019 & 6318/2019) 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.” 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: - (WPS Nos.6132/2019, 6131/2019, 6307/2019 & 6318/2019) “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. 11. This Court in WPS No.2051/2017, has also considered the order dated 1-12-2016 which was also questioned by the petitioner therein and thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed and writ appeal against that order has also been dismissed which was affirmed in SLP by the Supreme Court. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to entertain the present writ petitions in view of the decision passed by this Court in writ petition as also in writ appeal and thereafter in SLP by the Supreme Court. 12. As such, in view of the aforesaid finding of this Court and the Supreme Court, I am not inclined to entertain these writ petitions. I do not find any merit in these writ petitions, they deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Soma