Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Denial Of Two Advance Increments To Teacher Whose B.Ed. Was Mandatory For Appointment

The appellant was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in October 2008 and later as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II on 29 May 2009. He obtained a B.Ed. degree on 21 May 2008 and was appointed to the Grade-II post under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shikshakarmi (Bharti and Sewa Sharten) Niyam, 2007.

After his services were absorbed into the School Education Department in 2018, he sought two advance increments, asserting that similarly placed teachers had received them.

The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, including on the grounds that it was filed belatedly and that the 2007 Rules contained no provision for the increments. In this appeal, the appellant challenged that dismissal.

The Court applied the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shikshakarmi (Bharti and Sewa Sharten) Niyam, 2007, under which a B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. qualification was mandatory for appointment as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and which contained no provision for granting two advance increments to candidates holding that qualification.

The Court also relied on the State policy decision dated 7 March 2020, which superseded the earlier policy concerning two advance increments and, as it had not been challenged, remained binding on the appellant.

The Court noted that the practice of granting the increments had been discontinued from 16 June 1993, when the teaching qualification became mandatory.

No judicial precedent was relied upon.

The appellant was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II in 2009, when the prescribed teaching qualification was mandatory, and the 2007 Rules did not provide for two advance increments on account of possessing that qualification.

The Court considered that the earlier increments had served to encourage candidates to acquire a qualification that was not previously mandatory; that rationale did not apply to the appellant’s appointment under the 2007 Rules.

Further, the appellant had not challenged the 7 March 2020 policy decision, which the Court held was binding on him.

The Court therefore found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s order.

Finding the appeal devoid of merit and no infirmity in the Single Judge’s order, it dismissed the writ appeal.