Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs S.Govindan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs S.GovindanThe Government of Tamil Nadu v. S.Govindan

Dismissed¶31

The Government of Tamil Nadu v. S.Govindan

Madras HC22 Oct 2025REV.APLC(MD)/49/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Rev.APLC(MD) No. 49 of 2022; review under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 CPC; dismissed 22.10.2025 (R.Vijayakumar, J.; bench C.V.Karthikeyan and R.Vijayakumar, JJ.). Subject: incentive increment for higher qualification (M.A. History) acquired after appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher (B.Sc., B.Ed.); appointment-order condition barring incentive increment held not a legal bar to increment for M.A.; relates to W.P(MD)No.58 of 2019 (allowed 28.02.2020) and W.A(MD)No.1299 of 2020 (dismissed 08.07.2021); parties: Government of Tamil Nadu (School Education), DEO Sivakasi vs S.Govindan and Nadar Higher Secondary School, Watrap; advocates: P.Thiraviyam (Government Advocate), T.Pon Ramkumar.

What did the court decide?

The condition in the appointment order was imposed only to prevent the writ petitioner from claiming incentive increment for having acquired the B.Ed. degree; since the writ petitioner had acquired an M.A. degree, that condition cannot be cited as a legal bar.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the condition imposed in the appointment order that the teacher should not seek incentive increment operates as a legal bar to granting incentive increment for the higher qualification (M.A. degree) acquired after appointment, such that the co-ordinate bench's order requires reconsideration.

Court's answer

The condition in the appointment order was imposed only to prevent the writ petitioner from claiming incentive increment for having acquired the B.Ed. degree; since the writ petitioner had acquired an M.A. degree, that condition cannot be cited as a legal bar.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no reason to review the order passed in WA(MD)No.1299 of 2020 dated 08.07.2021 and accordingly dismissed the review application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Application (Rev.APLC(MD) No. 49 of 2022, filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 CPC) by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the District Educational Officer, Sivakasi, seeking review of the dismissal of W.A(MD)No.1299 of 2020 dated 08.07.2021, in which the Court had upheld grant of an incentive increment to S.Govindan, a Secondary Grade Teacher who acquired an M.A. degree after appointment despite an appointment-order condition that he should not seek incentive increment. The bench (order by R.Vijayakumar, J.) held that the condition was intended only to bar an increment claim based on the B.Ed. degree and, the teacher having acquired an M.A. degree, it cannot be cited as a legal bar; finding no reason to review, the review application was dismissed on 22.10.2025.

A

Rev.APLC(MD)No.49 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 22.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

Rev.APLC(MD) No. 49 of 2022

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Government, (School Educational and Elementary Educational Department) Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The District Educational Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

...Review Applicants/Appellants

.Vs.

1.S.Govindan Secondary Grade Teacher, Nadar Higher Secondary School, Watrap – 626 132, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Secretary, Nadar Higher Secondary School, Watrap – 626 132, Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents/Respondents

Prayer:-This Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of CPC to review the order dated 08.07.2021 passed in WA(MD)No.1299 of 2020.

1/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.APLC(MD)No.49 of 2022

For petitioner : Mr.P.Thiraviyam Government Advocate For R1 : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar

O R D E R

(Order of the court was made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR. J.)

The appellants in W.A(MD)No.1299 of 2020 have filed this review

application seeking to review the order passed by this Court on 08.07.2021.

The writ petitioner/R1, herein who is having B.Sc., B.Ed., qualification, was appointed as the Secondary Grade Teacher. Later, after acquiring M.A degree in History, he made a request for granting incentive increment. The said request was rejected primarily on the ground that in the appointment order, there is a condition that he should not seek incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification. This order was put to challenge in W.P(MD)No.58 of 2019. The said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court on 28.02.2020.

The State filed W.A(MD)No.1299 of 2020 and the writ appeal came to be dismissed on 08.07.2011 Challenging the said order, the present review application has been filed.

2/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.APLC(MD)No.49 of 2022

According to the learned Government Advocate, the writ petitioner, who had acquired the qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed., at the time of appointment as the Secondary Grade Teacher, was appointed with a specific condition that he should not seek incentive increment. In such circumstances, the order of the co-ordinate bench requires reconsideration.

We are not in agreement with the said contention. The said condition was imposed in the appointment order only to see that having appointed in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, the writ petitioner cannot seek incentive increment for having acquired B.Ed., degree. However, the writ petitioner had acquired M.A degree and therefore, this condition imposed in the appointment order cannot be cited as a legal bar.

5.In view of the reasons, we do not find any reason to review the order passed in WA(MD)No.1299 of 2020 dated 08.07.2021. Hence, this review application is dismissed.

(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.) 22.10.2025

3/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.APLC(MD)No.49 of 2022

CM

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

and R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

CM

Rev.APLC(MD) No. 49 of 2022

22.10.2025

4/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the condition imposed in the appointment order that the teacher should not seek incentive increment operates as a legal bar to granting incentive increment for the higher qualification (M.A. degree) acquired after appointment, such that the co-ordinate bench's order requires reconsideration.¶29
The court held
The condition in the appointment order was imposed only to prevent the writ petitioner from claiming incentive increment for having acquired the B.Ed. degree; since the writ petitioner had acquired an M.A. degree, that condition cannot be cited as a legal bar.ratio¶30

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

CPCOrder 47 Rule 1 and 2¶15 114¶15

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 08.07.2021 dismissing W.A(MD)No.1299 of 2020 (the State's writ appeal against grant of incentive increment), sought to be reviewed by the present application.¶15
This Court (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) · 08.07.2021
Prior proceeding
Writ petitioner (B.Sc., B.Ed.), appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher with an appointment-order condition that he should not seek incentive increment; after acquiring M.A. degree in History his request for incentive increment was rejected on the ground of that condition; he challenged the rejection in W.P(MD)No.58 of 2019.¶24
Prior proceeding
Writ petition W.P(MD)No.58 of 2019 was allowed by this Court on 28.02.2020.¶24
Prior proceeding
The State filed W.A(MD)No.1299 of 2020 and the writ appeal came to be dismissed (recorded in ¶25 as '08.07.2011', inconsistent with the date 08.07.2021 given in ¶15 and ¶31); challenging that order the present review application was filed.¶25

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Government, (School Educational and Elementary Educational Department)¶9
Mr.P.Thiraviyam
applicant
The District Educational Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District¶10
Mr.P.Thiraviyam
respondent
S.Govindan¶13
Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
respondent
The Secretary, Nadar Higher Secondary School, Watrap¶14

Coram

AI extract

C.V.KARTHIKEYANmember¶5
R.VIJAYAKUMARauthor¶21

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 22 Oct 2025 · October
Registered: 24 Feb 2022
Case no.: REV.APLC(MD)/49/2022
CNR: HCMD011054132021
Bench: C.v. Karthikeyan R.vijayakumar
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Rev.APLC(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from C.v. Karthikeyan R.vijayakumar

B. Rengarajan Vs State of Tamil Nadu
17 Oct 2025
Ganaguruvammal Vs The State of Tamil Nadu
17 Oct 2025
Sridharan Vs the Secretary to Government
17 Oct 2025
Kanagavalli Vs The State of Tamilnadu
22 Oct 2025
Natarajan Asari Vs Mupidathi Asari
22 Oct 2025
Jesinth Christostom Vs The State of Tamil Nadu
22 Oct 2025

Cite this judgement

The Government of Tamil Nadu v. S.Govindan, REV.APLC(MD)/49/2022 (MAD), decided on 22 October 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

CPCOrder 47 Rule 1 and 2 · 114

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Order dated 08.07.2021 dismissing W.A(MD)No.1299 of 2020 (the State's writ appeal against grant of incentive increment), sought to be reviewed by the present application.This Court (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) · 08.07.2021
Writ petitioner (B.Sc., B.Ed.), appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher with an appointment-order condition that he should not seek incentive increment; after acquiring M.A. degree in History his request for incentive increment was rejected on the ground of that condition; he challenged the rejection in W.P(MD)No.58 of 2019.
Writ petition W.P(MD)No.58 of 2019 was allowed by this Court on 28.02.2020.

View full history

Bench / Coram

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and R.VIJAYAKUMAR

Parties & counsel