All these writ petitions arise out of the order of the State Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has directed for payment of advance increments to the respondents who have passed B.Ed, examination at their own cost.

2. There are three types of cases involved in these connected petitions:-

(a) Whether the teachers who have acquired qualification of B.Ed, before joining the services are entitled for advance increments?

(b) Whether the teachers who have acquired qualification of B.Ed, after joining the services are entitled for advance increments?

(c) Whether the teachers who have acquired Masters of Education degree (M.Ed.) before or after joining the services are entitled for advance increments in addition to the increments already granted and;

(d) Whether the teachers posted after 16-6-1993 are not entitled for the benefit of advance increments as per cut off date fixed by the circular?

3. Counsel for the State submitted that the question of advance increments will not be applicable to the teachers appointed after 16-6-1993 and only those who have been appointed prior to 16-6-1993 will be entitled for the benefit of advance increments. Counsel for the State submitted that since minimum educational qualification for the post of teacher was only Matriculation or Graduation and the qualification of B.Ed, was not prescribed, therefore it was decided that the teachers who will pass the B.Ed, examination at their own cost, while in service, will be entitled for two advance increments as an incentive. However, the recruitment rules for teachers were amended in the year 1993 and for the appointment on the post of teacher, minimum qualification prescribed was enhanced to B.Ed. Thus, any employee appointed, who has passed the B.Ed, examination after the said date is not entitled for any advance increment or any employee who has been asked to get the qualification will also not be entitled for any advance increment. She submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the Circular in its true perspective and passed the orders without considering the facts of each case.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of M. P. vs. Badrinarayan Acharya, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2778 has not been considered properly. She submitted that the Single Bench judgment delivered has also not considered the circulars properly. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the recruitment rules of teachers were amended in the year 1993 and the effect of amendment in the recruitment rules has not been considered. She submitted that the Tribunal has passed vague orders holding therein that in view of the previous orders passed by the Tribunal, the teachers are entitled for two advance increments after they have obtained the qualification of B.Ed, at their own expense before or after entering into service.

5. Shri D. P. Singh, Advocate appearing for the respondent in W.P. No. 2968/04 submitted that the respondent was appointed on 15-9-1987 and acquired the qualification of B.Ed, before entering into service in the year 1987. He submitted that as per Circular, the respondent is entitled for the benefit in terms of the judgment of State of M. P. vs. Badrinarayan Acharya (supra). In W.P. No. 631/05, counsel for respondent submitted that the respondent has joined service in the year 1994 on compassionate appointment and he was asked to acquire the qualification within two years. Since it was a condition in his appointment letter, therefore respondent is entitled for advance increment on obtaining the B.Ed, degree. In W.P. No. 2369/04, Shri Anil Sharma, Counsel for respondent submitted that though respondent was granted two increments at the time of appointment but since he has acquired post graduate degree (M.Ed.), during the period of service, therefore, he is entitled for two more increments. Shri D. P, S. Bhadoriya, along with other counsel appearing for respondents also supported the order passed by the Tribunal and argued that the petitions, as filed, be dismissed.

6. To decide the controversy, we have to examine the brief history of Circulars and their importance. In the case of State of M. P. vs. Badrinarayan Acharya (supra) vide Finance Department's Memo No, 16333-CR-1892-I VRI dated 22-10-1964, advance increments were allowed only to those Government servants who had received training at their own costs and Government servants deputed for training at Government expenses were excluded from the grant of advance increments. Interpreting the Circular, it was held that those in service who had gone on training to improve their qualifications at the Government expenses, would not be eligible for two advance increments while those who had gone on training at their own expense, would be eligible for two advance increments within the stipulated period mentioned in the order and the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside. Thus, by this judgment, the Apex Court has held that those Government servants who were under employment and had received training at their own expense will be entitled for two increments. The Circular was applicable to Government servants and was not applicable to those who acquired training and qualification before joining the service.

7. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said notification (Circular) dated 23-10-1964 was withdrawn. Later on, the State Government issued one after another various circulars. Notification (Circular) dated 21-9-1974 also relates to grant of advance increments at the time of recruitment to trained teachers. Those circulars continued to be in operation and the candidates continued getting the benefit. It is contended that by Circular dated 18-12-1975, previous circulars were withdrawn, but the question involved in these petitions is whether the teachers will be entitled for two advance increments as the circular dated 1-3-1999 has reiterated for grant of benefit of two increments to teachers who had acquired qualification prior to 9-6-1993.

8. Circular dated 1-3-1999 is reproduced below: -

23-10-1964 7-5-1973

9. Thus, the said order has been confined to the teachers who had acquired the training of B.Ed, or B.T.I, between 23-10-1964 and 7-5-1973. The contention of counsel for the State is that those teachers who had acquired qualification of B.Ed, between 23-10-1964 and 7-5-1973 will be entitled for two advance increments if they have acquired the training at their own expense during the period of service. The said Circular was applicable to the employees who had completed the training of B.Ed, and B.T.I, at their own expense between 23-10-1964 to 7-5-1973 while in Government service. The said circular and its effect have been kept in mind by the Tribunal while deciding the cases. If the said circular has imposed a fixed cut off date for grant of benefit, then the question which is required to be considered is whether fixing of a cut off date is justified or not?

10. Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for recruitment of teachers are known as Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III Educational Service (Non College Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973. The said Rules did not prescribe the minimum qualification as B.Ed. or B.T.I. Later on the Rules were amended and qualification of training was included in the Rules. The Rules were amended with effect from 17-6-1993 and for lower division teachers, the qualification was re-classified to Higher Secondary with B.T.I, or B.Ed, degree and for the post of lecturer, the qualification was enhanced to graduation with B.Ed. Thus, the fixing of a cut off date is proper as after amendment under the Rules in the year 1993, the minimum qualification for entering into service is to have educational qualification of either B.T.I, or B.Ed, as the case may be. Therefore, when the recruitment rules have been amended and the minimum qualification for entering into service is B.Ed, or B.T.I., then there is no question of grant of advance increments to the teachers appointed after amendment in the recruitment rules. In the light of the said amendment in the recruitment rules, the cut off date fixed by the State is proper and relevant.

11. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Sumitra Devi, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1050, the Apex Court while considering the scope of grant of higher pay scale to a particular class of teachers on acquisition of higher qualification has held that such higher pay scales were admissible only to such teachers/masters who had enhanced their educational qualification during the course of service and it was held the petitioners who were having higher qualification at the time of appointment were not entitled for grant of higher pay scale. Similarly, in the case of State of Haryana vs. Harbans Lal, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 125, it was held that JBT teachers in the State of Haryana possessing BT/BEd qualification before issuance of the circular on 9-3-1990 would automatically be entitled to get the higher scale of pay, but those acquiring the said qualification subsequent to the policy decision dated 9-3-1990 would be governed by the subsequent circular and would not get the higher scale of pay automatically.

12. Thus, as per Circular, the benefit will be applicable to those who were in Government service on the date when they acquired higher qualification, but the employees who have already received increments on account of acquiring qualification will not be entitled for further increments on their acquiring M.Ed, degree either at the time of appointment or during the course of service.

13. However, before entering further into the controversy, it may be pointed out that the State has already issued a circular dated 17-10-2003 and extended the benefit of two increments to the teachers who were appointed upto 16-6-1993 and acquired qualification of B.Ed./B.T.I. at their own expense during the service, with the permission of department, between 23-10-1964 to 1-3-1999. Since, the subsequent circular has granted the benefit, therefore, it is ordered that as per circular dated 17-10-2003, the benefit of two increments will be applicable to those teachers who have acquired the qualification of B.Ed./B.T.I. during the period of service at their own expense after obtaining departmental permission. It is clarified that those teachers who have not acquired qualification at their own expense or have acquired qualification without the permission of department or those who have acquired qualification before entering into service, will not be entitled to get the benefit of two increments as per Circular dated 17-10-2003.

14. Thus, the petitions are disposed of in terms of Circular dated 17-10-2003 and the order of the Tribunal is modified to the effect that all the teachers who were appointed upto 16-6-1993 and who have acquired training of B.Ed, or B.T.I, at their own expense during the period of service with the permission of department between the period 23-10-1964 to 1-3-1999 will be entitled to get two annual increments and those who were appointed after 16-6-1993 or those who have acquired the qualification before appointment, will not be entitled for benefit of additional increments.

15. Accordingly, the order of Tribunal is modified. There shall be no order as to costs.

Later on:

After the judgment was posted, counsel for the petitioner relied upon a letter dated 21-3-2005, issued by the Commissioner, Directorate of Treasury and Accounts, wherein, the Commissioner has replied to the guidelines sought by the Directorate that whether B.Ed, and B.T.I, passed and trained teachers are entitled for two advance increments? Commissioner relied upon an earlier Circular dated 10-3-2005 wherein it is held that the Circular dated 17-10-2003 is issued without consultation with the Finance Department, hence it is against the Rules of State of Madhya Pradesh and the said Circular dated 17-10-2003 was withdrawn. Thus, in the letter, it is interpreted by the Commissioner, that the teachers who have acquired the qualification of B.Ed, and B.T.I, during service are not entitled for two advance increments.

This letter will not override the orders issued in the name of Governor as any order issued in the name of Governor by the Department of School Education, is an order under Article 166 of the Constitution of India and is deemed to be an order issued by the State Government. As such the said order of State Government cannot be withdrawn by the Commissioner in his individual capacity. This letter has no force of law and it cannot be considered.

Therefore, no modification is necessary in the order.

Order accordingly.