1. Contractual appointment — Termination for lack of prescribed postgraduate degree in Statistics — Dispute over whether a degree in Commerce with Statistics subjects satisfies eligibility. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2001
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
Laxmikant Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14588 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18907 of 2025)
Decided On : 04-12-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth R. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. U.n. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Aman Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Uddaish Palya, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Saxena, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Sarthak Raizada, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth R. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. U.n. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Aman Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Uddaish Palya, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Saxena, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Sarthak Raizada, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.
The court affirmed an employee's substantive qualifications over rigid formal requirements for educational degrees in determining employment eligibility.
Headnote:(A) Contractual Employment - Termination by State - Requirement for the post was a Postgraduate degree in Statistics; appellant's qualifications included relevant statistical subjects. The decision to terminate was found arbitrary as the appellant possessed the required qualifications contrary to the claims made by the State. (Paras 29, 32, 44)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope is limited; however, courts can review for fairness and non-arbitrariness even in matters of contract employment. The appellant was unjustly singled out while similarly qualified candidates remained. (Paras 40, 41)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was terminated from his post as he did not possess a ‘degree in Statistics’. He contested this claim citing his M.Com degree which included relevant coursework. Repeat terminations occurred despite assurances from a committee affirming his qualifications.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the appellant possessed the right qualifications when interpreted reasonably, and the termination was unjust given lack of proper procedural adherence by the State.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the State's insistence on the exact degree title with no equivalent in the State was arbitrary and if the appellant met the qualification criteria as advertised.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that it is unreasonable to disregard academic substance for form; when qualifications are found met in fact, termination cannot be upheld.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the State was ordered to reinstate the appellant.
Act Referred
Judgement Key Points
In another instance of challenging termination from contractual employment on grounds of allegedly deficient educational qualifications, the court ruled that the employer's demand for a precise degree title (postgraduate in Statistics) was unreasonable when the employee's qualification encompassed core statistical modules as major components, emphasizing equivalence in content over literal labeling. (!) (!) (!)
The dismissal was quashed for violating natural justice, as no opportunity for personal hearing was afforded prior to the decision, and post-termination university verifications validating the qualification's adequacy were summarily ignored. (!) (!)
Departmental expert assessment corroborated the employee's competence through syllabus equivalence and proven performance, rendering the employer's contrary stance perverse and reviewable. (!) (!)
Discriminatory treatment by terminating this employee alone, while sparing similarly qualified peers with comparable degree structures, breached Article 14's equality mandate, with no valid distinction upheld. (!) (!)
State contractual appointments, though temporary, demand non-arbitrary action; the court directed reinstatement with back wages and benefits, holding the termination vitiated by irrationality. (!) (!) (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims curriculum satisfaction and parity — Respondent contends strict adherence to degree nomenclature and lack of equivalence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
3. Interpretation of qualifications must be purposive — Reliance on factually incorrect reports and violation of natural justice renders termination arbitrary. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 )
4. Qualification requirements must be construed contextually and purposively — State's contractual actions are subject to fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14. (Para 32 , 41 )
5. Appeal allowed — Termination set aside — Direction for restoration to service with consequential benefits. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 )
6. How should the requirement of a specific postgraduate degree in an advertisement be interpreted when the exact degree title is unavailable?
Such requirements must be understood contextually and purposively, focusing on the actual curriculum rather than insisting solely on the degree title, to avoid elevating form over substance. (Para 32 )
7. Can the court review the termination of a contractual employee on grounds of arbitrariness?
Yes, while the court does not act as an appellate authority, it can review contractual actions to determine if they are vitiated by illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, or unfairness under Article 14. (Para 41 )
8. Does the failure to provide a hearing before recommending termination based on an inquiry report vitiate the decision?
Yes, preparing a report without affording the affected person an opportunity to be heard violates fundamental principles of natural justice and vitiates reliance on such reports. (Para 35 )
9. Can a candidate claim parity under Article 14 if similarly qualified persons are retained while they are terminated?
Yes, if a candidate is similarly situated to others who were found eligible based on their degrees, singling them out for termination without a rational basis violates Article 14. (Para 40 )
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 1536 of 2024. Vide the impugned judgment, the Division Bench affirmed the order dated 29.01.2024 of the Single Bench in W.P.(C) No. 4933 of 2021, whereby the appellant’s challenge to the termination of his contractual services, as Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant, Water Support Organization (W.S.O.), State Water Mission (S.W.M.), Public Health & Engineering Department (P.H.E.D.), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, was dismissed.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix of the present case as per the appellant is that the appellant had applied pursuant to an advertisement issued by the W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D. The advertisement prescribed the minimum qualification as: “Postgraduate degree in Statistics from a Government recognised University with at least 60% marks or equivalent grade”.
4. The appellant holds an M.Com. (Commerce) degree from Chhatrasal Government Postgraduate College, Panna, Madhya Pradesh (affiliated to Dr. Harisingh Gour University, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh) completed in 1999. As part of the curriculum, he studied Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects.
5. After physical verification of his educational qualifications and experience, the appellant was appointed on contract on 26.04.2013 and joined service on 16.05.2013 and served for nearly one year.
6. Subsequently, an 8-member Committee submitted a report dated 24.09.2013 stating that the appellant did not possess the required qualification for the post.
7. Relying on this report, the appellant’s services were terminated on 10.10.2013.
8. In successive rounds of litigation, the High Court set aside the termination orders (13.12.2013, 25.11.2014, 27.09.2018) and directed the authorities to reconsider the matter after granting the appellant a fair opportunity.
9. During reconsideration proceedings, two significant documents emerged:
A. A certificate dated 30.03.2019 issued by the appellant’s College/University, stating that the appellant’s M.Com. degree included Business Statistics as a principal subject; and
B. An opinion dated 23.11.2019 issued by the Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D., stating that the appellant did possess the requisite Statistics components in his postgraduate curriculum and recommending restoration of his services.
10. Despite these documents, the State again terminated the appellant by orders dated 02.11.2018 and 14.05.2020, reiterating that he lacked the requisite qualification.
11. The Single Bench and the Division Bench upheld the termination on the ground that the appellant did not possess a “degree in Statistics” as per the advertisement.
12. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment ignores the letter dated 23.09.2013 issued by the Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D., which certified that the appellant fulfilled the eligibility criteria under the advertisement. It is further submitted that the appellant’s documents and work experience were duly verified by the competent authority at the time of his appointment, and that the appellant’s College/University had confirmed that the appellant’s M.Com. degree included Statistics as principal subjects. The appellant had also worked diligently for a year, and the Director had accordingly recommended that his experience be utilised by the department.
14. It is further submitted that the High Court ignored the fact that no Government university in Madhya Pradesh offers a PG course titled “M.Com. (Statistics)” or any PG degree bearing “Statistics” in its nomenclature. Interpreting the eligibility condition in a manner that requires a degree which does not exist in any Government university is arbitrary and unrealistic.
15. It is also submitted tha
