Authority: Madras High Court, Madurai Bench

Order Date: 06.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: A group of BT Assistants, PG Assistants and Instructors employed in various government and government‑aided schools across Sivagangai, Pudukottai, Madurai, Ramanathapuram, Thoothukudi and other districts. They obtained an M.Phil (Summer Sequential Programme – SSP) degree from Alagappa University (Karaikudi) during the academic years 2016‑17, 2017‑18 and 2018‑19.
  • Respondents: The State of Tamil Nadu (represented by the Principal Secretary, School Education Department; Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department; Director of School Education; Joint Director of School Education (Vocational); Chief Educational Officers of various districts), the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education, the University Grants Commission (UGC), and the Registrar of Alagappa University.
  • Nature of Proceedings: Multiple writ petitions (WP(MD) Nos. 22995, 24479, 25378, 27033‑27038, 27582, 28019, 28134, 28440, 29018, 30520 of 2024; 1147, 2653, 7154, 8502, 18700‑18703, 18757, 33320‑33323 of 2025) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari/mandamus to quash government orders that cancelled incentive increments granted on the basis of the M.Phil (SSP) degree and to direct the authorities to allow the petitioners to receive the incentive.
  • Background: The petitioners were initially granted incentive increments for the M.Phil (SSP) qualification. In 2019 an audit objection was raised stating that the M.Phil (SSP) programme offered by Alagappa University was not recognised by the UGC. Consequently, the Government issued orders cancelling the incentive and directed recovery of amounts already paid.
  • Judicial History: A Division Bench in Veluchamy v. Secretary, University Grants Commission & Others (WA(MD)No. 259 of 2023, dated 07.12.2023) remanded the matter to the Government to decide on the equivalence of the M.Phil (SSP) degree. The Government constituted a 27th Equivalence Committee, which on 13.09.2024 held that the M.Phil (SSP) is not equivalent to a regular M.Phil for the purpose of incentive increments. The Government then issued G.O. (Ms.) No. 170, Higher Education (K1) Department dated 24.09.2024 approving this decision.
  • Expert Committee Findings: Three expert committees (meetings on 07.05.2024, 30.05.2024 and 13.06.2024) initially opined that the M.Phil (SSP) was equivalent to a regular M.Phil. The 27th Equivalence Committee, after reviewing syllabus comparisons and duration of the programme (45 days summer attendance plus 10 days later in the year, total 36 credit points), concluded that the mode of conduct did not satisfy the 2016 UGC Regulations (minimum two semesters/one year, 24 credit points) and therefore could not be treated as equivalent.
  • UGC Position: The UGC maintains that no university may offer M.Phil/Ph.D. programmes through distance or part‑time modes (G.O. (Ms.) No. 91, Higher Education (K2) Department dated 03.04.2009). It also states that equivalence of qualifications is to be determined by the employing authority, not by the UGC.
  • Legal Reasoning: The Court observed that incentive increments are discretionary rewards intended to encourage teachers to acquire qualifications that directly benefit their teaching duties. The Court cited R. Sakthivel v. Secretary, Education Department (2022) and Arul Rani v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) to emphasise that incentives are not statutory rights. The Court also referred to Anand Yadav v. State of U.P. (2021) and Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) to underline that courts are not expert bodies for academic equivalence determinations.
  • Conclusion of the Court: The Court found no infirmity in the Government’s order and the Equivalence Committee’s decision. It held that the petitioners had not demonstrated how the part‑time M.Phil (SSP) programme benefitted their teaching responsibilities.

Final Outcome

  • All writ petitions were dismissed.
  • The Government’s G.O. No. 170 (24‑09‑2024) and the related pay‑revision and recovery orders were upheld.
  • The Court directed that the incentive increments already paid to the petitioners be recovered.
  • The pay of all teachers who received the incentive on the basis of the M.Phil (SSP) degree must be refixed in accordance with the law.
  • No costs were awarded; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Topics: Education Incentive, Degree Equivalence