M.Vijayarani v. The Director Of School

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.01.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P(MD)Nos.14908 and 14909 of 2018 M.Vijayarani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director of School Education, Chennai - 6.

2.The District Educational Officer, Madurai.

3.The Block Educational Officer, Madurai South, Madurai.

4.The Secretary, Nadar Vidhyasalai Middle School, South Gate, Madurai.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 780/A1/2016, dated 06.10.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to release the incentive increment for M.A. qualification as per the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 02.05.2015 with effect from 29.05.2014 with all the consequential benefits.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent, dated 06.10.2016 and directing the respondents to release the incentive increment for M.A. qualification as per the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 02.05.2015 with effect from 29.05.2014 with all the consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner is a Tailoring Teacher. She has obtained M.A. degree and applied for incentive increment, which was also granted. Subsequently, the incentive increment provided to this petitioner was cancelled and she was directed to pay the amount, which has already been paid to her as an incentive increment. The petitioner has also paid the amount. Now, this petitioner claims that all others, who have obtained M.A., degree were provided with incentive increment. Therefore, she must also be provided with incentive increment.

3. This Court is unable to understand what purpose would be served by acquiring M.A., degree for a person, who has been appointed as a sewing 2/5

teacher. However, the quality of the department is reflected in the order in the manner in which she was provided incentive increment. This is how the incentive increments have been provided. The department has to realize in the event if such an incentive increments have been provided.

4. In this case, for the reasons best known to the respondents, the incentive increment has been provided to the petitioner. Necessary disciplinary proceedings need to be taken as against the person, who has sanctioned incentive increment for possessing M.A., degree to a sewing teacher. The purpose of incentive increment is to promote the education and that too based on the outcome from the students. These type of incentive increments has to be prohibited and necessary action to be taken as against the concerned officer, who has sanctioned these increments.

5. The petition is dismissed with above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 02.01.2025 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no SN 3/5

To:

1.The Director of School Education, Chennai - 6.

2.The District Educational Officer, Madurai.

3.The Block Educational Officer, Madurai South, Madurai.

4.The Secretary, Nadar Vidhyasalai Middle School, South Gate, Madurai.

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI , J.

SN 02.01.2025 5/5