W.A(MD)No.2237 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR W.A(MD)No.2237 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.15609 of 2024 The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. ... Appellant /1st respondent Vs. 1.J.D.Lazarus Tychicus, Secondary Grade Teacher, CSI High School, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. ...1st respondent / writ petitioner 2.The Correspondent, CSI High School, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. ... 2nd respondent / 2nd respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 27.06.2022 passed in WP(MD)No.5494 of 2018. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.2237 of 2024 For Appellant : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.Pon Ramkumar JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) The department is on appeal challenging the order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(MD)No.5494 of 2018 filed by the first respondent herein. 2.The first respondent was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 25.03.1998. At the time of his appointment, he was holding M.Com and B.Ed degrees. He was a overqualified candidate. The issue regarding appointment of such candidates was settled by the Division Bench. Pursuant to the direction set out therein, the Government issued G.O (Ms) No.155, School Education Department dated 03.10.2002. This G.O was challenged and the Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision reported in (2004) 2 L.W 591 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Pallivasal Primary School) upheld the validity of the G.O. The only relief granted to the teachers was that if any salary had been paid, the same shall not be recovered and the past service would count for pension benefit alone. Clause No.3 (vii) of the G.O alone was set aside and the rest of the G.O was upheld. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.2237 of 2024 3.While so, the writ petitioner herein claimed that he was entitled to incentive increments for acquiring M.Ed and M.Phil degrees from the dates when he passed the same. His request was rejected by the District Educational Officer, Sivagangai District vide order dated 22.02.2018. To quash the same, the first respondent herein filed WP(MD)No.5494 of 2018 and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed. 4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant reiterated the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and called upon this Court to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allow this writ appeal. 5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner filed compilation including a catena of earlier case laws of this court. According to him, the petitioner could claim incentive increment for acquiring B.Com/B.Ed. Degrees and that the terms of his undertaking will not come in the way of seeking incentive increment for acquiring higher degrees. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.2237 of 2024 6.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. 7.The learned Special Government Pleader drew our attention to G.O (Ms) No.155 School Education Department dated 03.10.2002. The said G.O was issued pursuant to the direction given in Pallivasal case. Clause 9 of the said G.O reads as follows : “,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpaplj;jpy; epakpf;fg;gLk; gl;ljhhp / jkpohrphpah; jFjp ngw;w egh;fSf;F ,ilepiy Mrphpah;fSf;fhd Cjpa tpfpjk;jhd; toq;fg;gLk; vd;Wk;> Ntnwe;j rpwg;Gr; rYifAk; mspf;fg;gl khl;lhJ vd;Wk;> mth;fs; ,ilepiy Mrphpauhf gzpahw;Wk; fhyj;jpy; cah; fy;tpj; jFjpf;fhd rpwg;G Cjpa cah;T toq;Fk; jpl;lk; ,th;fSf;Fg; nghUe;jhJ vd;Wk;> ,jw;fhd cWjpnkhopr; rhd;W rk;ge;jg;gl;l egh;fsplkpUe;J ngwg;gl Ntz;Lnkd;Wk; njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.” 8.The said clause categorically states that the overqualified candidates who were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers who acquired higher qualification will not be eligible for incentive increments. In the said clause, there was a direction to obtain undertaking affidavit from the teachers concerned. This aspect of the matter was not considered in any of the orders relied on by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner including the order dated 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.2237 of 2024 27.06.2011 made in WA(MD)No.511 of 2011. When a material clause in the G.O which had been upheld by the Division Bench forbids grant of incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification and the said clause has not been taken note of, the earlier rulings will not be binding precedents. It has been so held vide order dated 24.08.2022 in WA(MD)No.910 of 2022 (R.Sakthivel vs. Secretary to Government). In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. This writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. [G.R.S., J.] & [K.R.S., J.] 28.07.2025 SKM To The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.2237 of 2024 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J and K.RAJASEKAR, J. SKM W.A(MD)No.2237 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.15609 of 2024 28.07.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis