Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 382
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Kamal Prasad Dubey – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4350-4351 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13578-13579 of 2020)
Decided On : 10-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Promotion and Discrimination
Act Referred
MADHYA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT : S.55(1)
Prathmic, Krishi Saakh Sahakari Sanstha, Vrihattakar Saakh Sahakari Sanstha, Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Sewa Sanstha, Krishak Sewa Sahakari Sanstha Karmchari Sewa Niyojan, Nibandhan, Tatha Karya Stithi Niyam : R.19(a)
Headnote
(B) Employment Law - Promotion - Equal Treatment - The principles of equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 necessitate uniform eligibility standards, ensuring that qualified individuals receive equitable benefits without arbitrary distinctions. (Paras 8.1, 9.2)
(C) Judicial Review - The higher courts must ensure rational and justifiable reasoning when reviewing administrative decisions impacting employment qualifications and promotions, especially concerning equality and fairness in public service. (Paras 9, 9.1)
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Ruchi Gupta, AOR Mr. Arnab Kumar Mondal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR Mrs. Pratima Singh, Adv. Mr. Arpit Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukul Gupta, Adv. Mr. Lovedeep Bangia, Adv. Mr. M.Tajdar Siddiqui, Adv.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and initial rulings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments by the parties regarding promotion. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal requirements for educational qualifications. (Para 6) |
| 4. court analysis of discrimination and equal treatment. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. contradictions in the division bench ruling. (Para 9) |
| 6. final decision and order of the court. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave granted.
2. Discrimination is the other name of injustice.
2.1 The challenge in these appeals addressed by the appellant-original petitioner to the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, allowing Writ Appeal No. 1758 of 2019, and to order dated 17.12.2019 dismissing the corresponding Review Petition No. 1665 of 2019, deserves to be considered in light of the above principle.
2.2 The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 12814 of 2016 before learned Single Judge of the High Court in which he challenged order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal-respondent No. 2 herein, whereby the request of respondent No. 5- Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society for relaxing the educational qualification of the appellant for the promotion to the post of Society Manager came to be rejected.
2.3 Learned Single Judge of the High Court, by his order dated 22.01.2019, allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the aforementioned order dated 07.06.2016, and directed respondent No. 2-Registrar to pass order extending the benefit of relaxation in the educational qualification granting promotion to the appellant.
2.4 The Division Bench, however took the view, as per the impugned order, that the discretion to grant the relaxation was with the Board of Directors of the society, and not with the Registrar and that the appellant since did not have the necessary qualification, the Registrar was right in declining to grant the relaxation.
2.5 It may be mentioned that this Court, in the present proceedings, by order dated 05.11.2020, directed that the appellant shall not be demoted, which has continued till date.
3. Outlining the attendant facts, the appellant who is presently posted as Manager, Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society, Nayagaon, Panna District-respondent No. 5, a society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and has the experience of 28 years of working in the Society, came to be appointed as Sahayak Samiti Sevak vide order dated 02.09.1987, on permanent basis.
3.1 The service conditions of the employees of the society are governed by the service rules framed by the Registrar of Cooperative Society in exercise of powers under Section 55(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It was stated that the earlier Rules framed by order dated 09.10.1990 came to be substituted with new Rules on 30.08.2013, repealing the old Rules. The appellant was appointed as Sahayak Samiti Sevak by order dated 02.09.1987. He had passed the Higher Secondary School Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, in the year 1984.
3.2 At the time when the appellant was appointed as Samiti Sevak, he was Higher Secondary passed, and had undergone various training programmes. By order dated 23.07.1996, he was deputed as Clerk in Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank. In view of experience of the appellant, respondent No.5-Society passed a resolution dated 26.02.2014 deciding and resolving to promote the appellant from the post of Sahayak Samiti Prabandhak to Samiti Prabandhak (Society Manager).
3.3 One Mr. Sajid Ali was transferred on 19.06.2014 to respondent No.5-Society and came to be posted as Samiti Prabandhak, which was the post on which the appellant had already been working. In that view, when guidance was sought from the Registrar, by his communication dated 15.10.2015 the Registrar accepted the recommendation made by the Assistant Registrar and allowed the appellant to continue on the post of Societ
