(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.13983/K/E3/2023 dated 11.07.2024 passed by the first respondent, quash the same and consequently, permitting the petitioner to receive the incentives for higher for higher qualification of M.Phil., (SSP).

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned declaration in S.No.22, item 40, in GO(MS).No.170, issued by the second respondent dated 24.09.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents 2 & 5 to permit to the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the fifth respondent.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned declaration in S.No.22, item 40, in GO(MS).No.170, issued by the second respondent dated 24.09.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents 2 & 5 to permit to the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the fifth respondent.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.6233/A2/2023 dated 24.10.2024 and the proceedings of the second respondent dated 30.10.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to permit to the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2729/Aa5/2024 dated 24.10.2024 and the proceedings of the second respondent dated 29.10.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to permit to the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.6667/Aa5/2024 dated 24.10.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to permit to the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.6233/A2/2023 dated 24.10.2024 and the proceedings of the second respondent dated 30.10.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to permit to the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2729/Aa5/2024 dated 24.10.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to permit to the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.6233/A2/2023 dated 24.10.2024 and the proceedings of the second respondent dated 30.10.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to permit to the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.11/2024 dated 09.11.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to permit to the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned declaration in S.No.22, item 40, in GO(MS)No.170 issued by the first respondent dated 24.09.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to permit to the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in GO.Ms.No.170, Higher Education (K1) Department dated 24.09.2024 insofar as it relates to Serial No.22 is concerned and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.072435/K/E1/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and quash the same.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in GO.Ms.No.170, Higher Education (K1) Department dated 24.09.2024 insofar as it relates to Serial No.22 is concerned and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.072435/K/E1/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and quash the same.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned declaration in S.No.22, item 40, in GO.Ms.No.170, issued by the first respondent dated 24.09.2024, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in GO.Ms.No.170, Higher Education (K1) Department dated 24.09.2024 insofar as it relates to Serial No.22 is concerned and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.072435/K/E1/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and the consequential order passed by the seventh respondent in Na.Ka.No. 207-2024 dated 10.12.2024 and quash the same.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.78/2024 dated 23.12.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned declaration in S.No.22, item 40, in GO(Ms).No.170 issued by the second respondent dated 24.09.2024, quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents 2 & 5 to permit the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in GO(Ms).No.170, Higher Education (K1) Department, dated 24.09.2024 insofar as it relates to Serial No.22 is concerned and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.072435/K/E1/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and quash the same.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in GO(Ms).No.170, Higher Education (K1) Department, dated 24.09.2024 insofar as it relates to Serial No.22 is concerned and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.072435/K/E1/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and quash the same.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.35/2025 dated 25.06.2025 issued by the third respondent, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.35/2025 dated 25.06.2025 issued by the third respondent, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.35/2025 dated 25.06.2025 issued by the third respondent, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.35/2025 dated 25.06.2025 issued by the third respondent, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to receive the incentive increment for the M.Phil (SSP) awarded by the Karaikudi Alagappa University.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in GO(Ms).No.170, Higher Education (K1) Department, dated 24.09.2024 insofar as it relates to Serial No.22 is concerned and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.072435/K/E1/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and quash the same.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in GO(Ms).No.170, Higher Education (K1) Department, dated 24.09.2024 insofar as it relates to Serial No.22 is concerned and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.072435/K/E1/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and the consequential order passed by the seventh respondent in Na.Ka.No. 29/2025 dated 19.03.2025 and the consequential order passed by the seventh respondent in Na.Ka.No.94/2025 dated 10.11.2025 and quash the same.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in GO(Ms).No.170, Higher Education (K1) Department, dated 24.09.2024 insofar as it relates to Serial No.22 is concerned and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.072435/K/E1/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and the consequential order passed by the seventh respondent in Na.Ka.No. 29/2025 dated 19.03.2025 and the consequential order passed by the seventh respondent in Na.Ka.No.94/2025 dated 10.11.2025 and quash the same.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in GO(Ms).No.170, Higher Education (K1) Department, dated 24.09.2024 insofar as it relates to Serial No.22 is concerned and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.072435/K/E1/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and the consequential order passed by the seventh respondent in Na.Ka.No. 29/2025 dated 19.03.2025 and the consequential order passed by the seventh respondent in Na.Ka.No.94/2025 dated 10.11.2025 and quash the same.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in GO(Ms).No.170, Higher Education (K1) Department, dated 24.09.2024 insofar as it relates to Serial No.22 is concerned and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.072435/K/E1/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and the consequential order passed by the seventh respondent in Na.Ka.No. 29/2025 dated 19.03.2025 and the consequential order passed by the seventh respondent in Na.Ka.No.94/2025 dated 10.11.2025 and quash the same.)

Common Order

1. The petitioners are BT Assistants, PG Assistants and Instructors working in various government schools and government aided schools. They have obtained the M.Phil degree from Alagappa University through Summer Sequential Programme [hereinafter referred to as “M.Phil (SSP)”] which was offered during three academic years viz., 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. On the basis of this M.Phil (SSP) degree, they were provided with incentive increment. However in the year 2019, an audit objection was raised that the M.Phil (SSP) course offered by the Alagappa University was not recognised by the University Grants Commission [hereinafter referred to as “UGC”] and orders were passed cancelling their incentive increment. Therefore, the petitioners and other teachers approached this Court challenging the validity of such orders and the issue went up the Division Bench of this Court.

2. The Division Bench of this Court in Veluchamy v. Secretary, University Grants Commission and Others [WA(MD)No.259 of 2023, etc Batch dated 07.12.2023] raised doubts regarding whether the M.Phil (SSP) degree was recognized by the Government and directed the Government to take a decision on the equivalence and validity of M.Phil (SSP) degree and to take decision on whether the said degree can be considered for the purpose of incentive increment or not.

3. Thereafter, this issue was referred to the Equivalence Committee constituted by the Government and the 27th Equivalence committee in its meeting dated 13.09.2024 has decided that the M.Phil (SSP) offered by the Alagappa University is not equivalent to the Regular M.Phil degree for the purpose of awarding incentives to the teachers working in schools. Subsequently, the Government has issued G.O.(Ms.)No.170, Higher Education (K1) Department dated 24.09.2024 and approved the above decision of the Equivalence Committee. Thereafter, the Government has issued directions for refixing the pay of the petitioners and also issued recovery orders to some of the petitioners. As against the aforesaid government order and also the consequent pay revision and recovery orders, these writ petitions have been filed.

4. Since the issue arising in these writ petitions is common, all the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed by way of this common order.

Petitioners' case:-

5. The case of the petitioners, as advanced by the respective learned Senior Counsel / Counsel, is summarised as under:

                     (i)The petitioners have obtained the M.Phil (SSP) Degree from the Alagappa University and this course was conducted in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations, 2016 [in short “2016 UGC Regulations”]. This course was part-time course conducted on the basis of Choice Based Credit System. As per the 2016 UGC Regulations, the M.Phil programme shall be offered for a minimum of 2 consecutive semesters / one year and a minimum of 24 credit points is prescribed for such courses. This course offers 36 credit points and is conducted over a period of one year, with compulsory 45 days attendance from April to June and further 10 days attendance between July and December of the same year. Hence, it cannot be said that the course is not following the 2016 UGC Regulations.

                     (ii)The Government accepted the equivalence of the M.Phil (SSP) programmes offered by other universities such as the Tamil Nadu Educational University and the Tamil Open University. Therefore, the impugned government order discriminates as against the petitioners who have obtained M.Phil (SSP) degree from the Alagappa University.

                     (iii)There are three expert committees which opined on 07.05.2024, 30.05.2024 and 13.06.2024 that the M.Phil (SSP) Degree offered by the Alagappa University is equivalent to the regular M.Phil degree. However the 27th Equivalence committee has decided that the M.Phil (SSP) degree offered by the Alagappa University is not equivalent to M.Phil (Regular) for the purpose of awarding incentive increment to the teachers working in schools. This decision was taken considering the financial implications and is an unreasonable decision. Further, the Equivalence Committee has decided that the M.Phil (SSP) Degree offered by the Alagappa University is not equivalent for the purpose of incentive increment alone and the same is arbitrary in nature.

                     (iv)The approval of research programmes such as M.Phil is decided by the awarding University and not by the equivalence committee.

                     (v)The Government has taken a policy decision to provide incentive increment to the teachers who are obtaining M.Phil Qualification in G.O.Ms.No.1170, Education, Science and Technology Department dated 20.12.1993. This government order does not mention about the nature of the course undertaken and hence, the impugned government order is liable to be set aside.

Stand of Alagappa University:-

6. The common stand of the Alagappa University in all these writ petitions is summarised as under:

                     (i)The University offered a part-time M.Phil Course namely, the M.Phil (Summer Sequential Programme) Course only in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standard and Procedure for award of M.Phil/Ph.D) Regulations, 2016. They have complied with the minimum course duration, evaluation and credit requirements as provided under the 2016 UGC Regulations. This course was restricted to the teachers who were working at any affiliated college or recognized school with at least two years of continuous teaching experience.

                     (ii)The M.Phil (SSP) degree offered by the University was approved by the the standing committee on Academic affairs, Syndicate and Senate of the University which is the highest executive body in the year 2013-14. Thereafter, the Committee of Faculty of Deans of the University has framed and approved the modalities of this course on 10.08.2015.

                     (iii)There were three expert committees which previously decided that the M.Phil(SSP) degree offered by the University is equivalent to the Regular M.Phil degree. However, a decision was taken by the 27th Equivalence Committee that the M.Phil (SSP) degree offered by the University is not equivalent to the Regular M.Phil Degree. After initially taking a stand that the M.Phil (SSP) course was equivalent, the Government cannot now turn around and decide that this degree is not equivalent for the purpose of offering increments to the teachers.

                     (iv)The University is a part of the November 2019 UGC Updated List of Category-I Higher Educational Institutions (HEI's) who are allowed to offer programmes through open and Distance Learning (ODL)

                     Stand of Higher Education Department and Tamil Nadu State Higher Educational Council:-

7. The common stand of the Higher Education Department and the Tamil Nadu State Higher Educational Council in all these writ petitions is summarised hereunder:

                     (i)The petitioners were provided with incentive increment for obtaining M.Phil (SSP) degree from the Alagappa University in the academic years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. Thereafter, an Audit Objection was raised that this particular course is not recognized by the UGC. Therefore, directions were issued to cancel the increment offered for obtaining the same and to recover the increment already paid. The petitioners and other teachers approached this Court challenging the same. A Division Bench of this Court in Veluchamy v. Secretary, University Grants Commission and Others [WA(MD)No.259 of 2023, etc Batch dated 07.12.2023] has directed the Government to consider whether this course is equivalent to regular M.Phil degree for providing incentive increment. The Equivalence Committee which is an expert body has examined the issue and decided that the M.Phil (SSP) degree of the Alagappa University is not equivalent to the Regular M.Phil degree. Hence, the impugned government order and the recovery orders were only passed pursuant to the directions of this Court.

                     (ii)The grant of incentive increment to the teachers for obtaining additional qualification is not a part of the pay rules and is a special benefit provided to the teachers. This benefit is provided to encourage the teachers to acquire higher qualification and utilise this knowledge for developing the education system and improve the quality of teaching. Therefore, the grant of incentive increment is not a legal right which can be claimed by the petitioners.

                     (iii)According to the 2016 UGC Regulations, the M.Phil Course should consist of one year / two semesters. However, the petitioners have undergone a Summer Sequential Programme and the duration of this course is only for 45 days. It is not a full time course. Further, the Government has taken a policy decision that M.Phil / Ph.D should not be offered through distance education and only through regular stream from Academic Year 2007-08 onwards vide G.O.(Ms.)No.91, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 03.04.2009. Therefore, the M.Phil (SSP) degree offered by the Alagappa University is not following the 2016 UGC Regulations.

                     (iv)The M.Phil (SSP) course offered by the Alagappa University is only approved by the Academic committee of the University and not by the UGC.

8. The UGC has taken a common stand in these writ petitions that as per the 2016 UGC Regulations, no University is allowed to offer M.Phil and Ph.D courses through distance education mode. They also submit that the determination of relevance or equivalency of qualifications is within the exclusive purview of concerned appointing authority. Further, they submit that the recognition of the Alagappa University for offering programmes through Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode is subject to the condition that they follow the norms prescribed by the regulatory bodies.

9. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials.

10. The petitioners are BT Assistants, PG Assistants and Instructors working in various government schools and government aided schools. They have obtained the M.Phil (SSP) degree from the Alagappa University and were provided with incentive increment based on this qualification. Thereafter, an audit objection was raised that the M.Phil (SSP) course offered by the Alagappa University was not recognised by the UGC and orders were passed cancelling their incentive increment. The petitioners and other teachers filed various writ petitions challenging the validity of such orders and this Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the teachers. As against the same, writ appeals were filed and a Division Bench of this Court in Veluchamy v. Secretary, University Grants Commission and Others [WA(MD)No.259 of 2023, etc Batch dated 07.12.2023] has directed the Government to take a decision on whether the said degree can be considered for the purpose of incentive increment or not. The relevant portions are extracted as under:

                     “13. In either of the circumstances, we will be interfering with the policy decision of the Government to grant incentive increment to the teachers. Therefore, it would be appropriate for us to refer the matter to the Government for taking a clear decision whether to recognize the M.Phil.,Degree obtained under the Summer Sequential Programmes conducted by Alagappa University as a valid Degree for the purpose of grant of incentive increment. Further, on going through the Rules, the M.Phil., Course under the Summer Sequential Programmes is a parttime course or not itself is not clear. In view of the said ambiguity, we are unable to form a concrete opinion whether the M.Phil., Course under Summer Sequential Programmes conducted by Alagappa University falls under the part-time course or under the full-time course.

                     14. In view of the facts and circumstances, we pass the following orders:

                     ... ... ...

                     (ii) The matter is remanded back to the Government for taking decisions on the equivalence and the validity of the M.Phil., Degree obtained by the writ petitioners / teachers under the Summer Sequential Programmes conducted by Alagappa University and to take a decision, whether the said Degree is to be considered for the purpose of grant of incentive increment or not.

                     (iii) The Government is expected to decide the issues as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.”

11. Therefore, only based on the above directions of this Court, the issue was referred to the Equivalence Committee constituted by the Government. This Equivalence Committee headed by the Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department was constituted vide G.O. (Ms.)No.93, Higher Education (K2) Department dated 30.05.2019 for the purpose of considering the issue of equivalence of courses for the purpose of employment in public services. This government order also empowered the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education to constitute a committee with concerned chairpersons of the Board of Studies, to take up unit wise comparison of the syllabus of the courses to decide on equivalence.

12. It is relevant to note that the 27th Equivalence committee in its meeting dated 13.09.2024 has decided that the M.Phil (SSP) offered by the Alagappa University is not equivalent to the Regular M.Phil degree for the purpose of awarding incentives to the teachers working in schools, based on the views of the Board of Studies/ Subject matter experts. It was opined by the Board of Studies that the M.Phil (SSP) Course was not complying with the 2016 UGC Regulations. Subsequently, the Government has issued G.O.(Ms.)No.170, Higher Education (K1) Department dated 24.09.2024 approving the decision of the Equivalence Committee.

13. It is a settled position that this Court is not an expert body for the purpose of forming an opinion regarding the equivalence of degrees. In Anand Yadav v. State of U.P [(2021) 12 SCC 390], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Courts cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the decision of experts in academic matters such as eligibility and equivalence. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

                     “34. We may notice that it is not as if a person with an MEd degree is eligible for all the posts which were advertised for Science, Arts and others. Their eligibility has been found only for the post of Assistant Professor (Education), which is directly relatable to the subject to be taught. We do not think the fact that both MEd and MA (Education) degree-holders have to take a common test for the purposes of NET is conclusive, but it is one of the factors to be considered, and once the expert body being NCTE, inter alia, has taken that aspect into consideration apart from other factors to opine equivalence for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Education, it would not be appropriate to take a contra view.

                     35. We say so in view of the fact that matters of education must be left to educationists, of course subject to being governed by the relevant statutes and regulations. It is not the function of this Court to sit as an expert body over the decision of the experts, especially when the experts are all eminent people as apparent from the names as set out. This aspect has received judicial imprimatur even earlier and it is not that we are saying something new. We may refer to the pronouncement in Zahoor Ahmad Rather [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 353] in this behalf which has dealt with the dual aspects : (a) it is for the employer to consider what functionality of qualification and content of course of studies would lead to the acquisition of an eligible qualification; and (b) such matters must be left to educationists.

                     ... ... ...

                     37. ... If the two degrees are identical, there is no question of equivalence. The issue of equivalence only arises when there are two different degrees and what is to be decided whether for certain purposes they can be treated as equivalent. This is exactly what has happened as a result of the respective expert committees set up by Respondents 2 & 5. The employer i.e. Respondent 2, had accepted the recommendation of the expert committee. The UGC has also taken a stand that insofar as the two degrees are concerned, both are postgraduate degrees, and the equivalence authority being Respondent 5 has also opined on the basis of an expert committee, that the two can be treated as equivalent for the post of Assistant Professor in Education. Thus, it is neither for the contesting party i.e. Respondent 3, nor for this Court to sit as a court of appeal over the decision of the experts. ...”

14. As noted above, an expert body viz., the Equivalence Committee based on the opinion of subject experts has determined that the M.Phil (SSP) Degree offered by the Alagappa University is not equivalent to the Regular M.Phil Degree for the purpose of granting incentive increment. In the absence of any extreme irrationality or arbitrariness, this Court cannot substitute its own views for the views of this expert body.

15. The primordial contention of the petitioners is that the Equivalence Committee, in its previous meetings, had found that this course was equivalent to the regular M.Phil Degree and hence, it cannot change its opinion in such a manner. However, a perusal of the minutes of the meetings reveal that even in the previous meeting of the Equivalence Committee dated 07.05.2024, serious doubts were raised regarding whether the M.Phil (SSP) Course offered by the Alagappa University was equivalent to the regular M.Phil course. The relevant portions of the minutes of the meeting is extracted as under for reference:

                     “The Committee unanimously recommends as follows;

                     It appears that Alagappa University had started M.Phil., Summer Sequential Programme (SSP) to enable teachers who are in service to improve their qualification and thereby help them to get possible financial benefits.

                     Having gone through the issue, the Committee unanimously resolved as follows:

                     1.Mode of conduction of M.Phil.,(SSP) was totally different from that of the minimum conditions prescribed by the UGC for the award of M.Phil.,degree. Therefore, M.Phil.,(SSP) does not stand a chance to be considered as equivalent to M.Phil.,(Regular).

                     2.Comparison of the syllabus between M.Phil.,(SSP) & M.Phil., (Regular) cannot be taken up by the Committee as it has to be carried out by the Individual Subject Experts Committee. As there were two Subjects Experts for Physical Education in the Committee, it was found that syllabus for M.Phil.,(SSP) for Physical Education was equivalent to M.Phil.,(Regular). However, other conditions like the duration of class hours were not equivalent and M.Phil.,(SSP) & M.Phil.,(Regular). Comparison for other subjects should be carried out by individual Subject Expert Committees.

                     3.Given the M.Phil.,(SSP) does not qualify for equivalence to M.Phil.,(Regular) as per UGC's mandatory guidelines, the Committee concluded that equivalence cannot be given with M.Phil.,(Regular).

                     4.Notwithstanding the eligibility to be considered for the equivalence with M.Phil.,(Regular), however, the Committee recommends that being a degree offered for a specific purpose, the Government at its discretion, may still consider the degree as a sufficient qualification for the purpose of awarding financial benefits such as Increments/ Incentives to the Teachers working in schools.”

16. Therefore, the Expert Committee has clearly stated that the mode of conduct of this course is different from the minimum conditions prescribed by the UGC for the award of M.Phil degree and that this course cannot be considered to be equivalent to the regular M.Phil degree. However, the Committee has opined that the Government, in its discretion, may consider the degree as sufficient for granting incentive increment to the teachers working in schools. Thereafter, the Equivalence Committee has decided that even for the purpose of granting incentive increment to the teachers, this course is not equivalent to the Regular M.Phil degree. Hence, it cannot be termed as an arbitrary or unreasonable decision, warranting the interference of this Court.

17. The Expert Committee has also clearly stated that this course was started to enable the teachers to improve their qualification and get possible financial benefits. Such an object is wholly incompatible with the objectives behind providing incentive increment to the teachers. It is relevant to note that the concept of incentive increment did not originate as a service benefit attached to every higher qualification acquired by a Government servant. Rather, it emerged as a policy measure intended to encourage Government servants to acquire specialised knowledge and qualifications that would enhance their efficiency in public service. In the case of teachers, the Government recognised that acquisition of higher qualifications would improve the quality of classroom instruction and ultimately strengthen the education system. It is for this reason that the Government introduced the scheme of incentive increments to teachers through GO.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10.01.1969.

18. An incentive, by its very nature, is a reward extended by the employer to encourage excellence, improve efficiency, or promote the acquisition of knowledge and skills that advance the interests of public administration. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines the expression "incentive" as "something that encourages a person to do something by offering them a reward." The definition itself indicates that an incentive is intended to encourage a desired course of action by rewarding it. Therefore, the grant of an incentive increment cannot be treated as an automatic entitlement merely because a Government servant has acquired a higher educational qualification.

19. A Division Bench of this Court in R.Sakthivel v. The Secretary to Government, Education Department and Others [W.A. (MD)No.910 of 2022 dated 24.08.2022] held that the object of granting incentive increments is to encourage teachers to acquire qualifications that would be beneficial to the students. The relevant observations read as follows:

                     “13. The appellant submitted that the object of granting incentive increment is to lift the morale of the teachers. But the Government states that the object of granting incentive increment is to encourage the Teachers to qualify themselves, so that their qualification would be beneficial to the students. In the present case the petitioner was working as Secondary Grade Teacher taking class for students from 1 to 5 standards and the qualification of M.Sc. Physics would not be beneficial to the students studying in the standards 1 to 5. Therefore, the Government is right in denying the incentive increment for higher qualifications when the higher qualification is not beneficial for the students studying in the standards 1 to 5.”

The principle laid down by the Division Bench squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

20. This Court has also taken a similar view in Arul Rani vs. State of Tamil Nadu [W.P.(MD)No.15098 of 2020 dated 16.03.2023], wherein recovery of the incentive increment granted to a Secondary Grade Teacher for acquiring M.A. and M.Phil. qualifications was upheld. This Court observed as follows:

                     "15. ... An incentive must be a reward to encourage a worker, who is performing better than the others. It must be depending upon the performance and not on possession of any degree alone."

21. Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Edition) defines "incentive compensation" as "payments in excess of agreed wages; a bonus and profit sharing as an incentive for good performance." This definition reinforces the principle that an incentive is linked to the benefit expected by the employer and not merely to the possession of an additional qualification. In the case of teachers, the knowledge and skills acquired through the higher qualification must have a direct bearing on the teaching duties discharged by them and should ultimately enure to the benefit of the students. Mere acquisition of an additional qualification, without any corresponding educational benefit to the students or the institution, cannot, by itself, confer a right to claim an incentive increment.

22. Applying the above principles to the facts of this case, the petitioners have attended a part-time M.Phil course for which the duration of attendance is only 45 days during the first summer and 10 days between July and December of the same year. The nature of this course is not the same as that of the regular M.Phil Course. The petitioners have not justified as to how they are using the knowledge gained in such a part-time course for the benefit of the students.

23. It is also relevant to note that as per UGC Public Notice in Letter No.F.9 –3/2016 (CPP-II) dated 19.07.2016, the equivalence of the degree is not determined by the UGC and in cases of employment, promotion, etc., the equivalence shall be determined by the employing organization. In the present case, the State Government, being the employer of the petitioners, has determined the issue of equivalence against the petitioners for the purpose of granting incentive increment.

24. In view of the object underlying the scheme of incentive increments, the decision of the Expert Committee and the principles laid down in the above decisions, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned government order and consequential directions issued by the respondents. Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed. The Government is directed to ensure that the pay of not only the petitioners, but the pay of all the teachers who were provided with incentive increment on the basis of the M.Phil (SSP) Degree offered by the Alagappa University is refixed and the increments already paid is recovered in accordance with the law. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.