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
| 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
Discrimination in promotion based on arbitrary denial of relaxation in educational qualifications violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, mandating equal treatment for all employees in publi....
Promotions within public service must adhere to established criteria to uphold equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, prohibiting arbitrary decisions that favor select individuals.
Article 14 is an integral part of our system, each and every State action is to be tested on touchstone of equality.
Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within exclusive domain of legislature/executive and cannot be subject matter of judicial review.
Classification based on educational qualifications for promotion is a valid exercise of administrative authority that does not violate constitutional equality protections. Financial career progressio....
(1) Classification between persons must not produce artificial inequalities. The classification must be founded on a reasonable basis and must bear nexus to the object and purpose sought to be achiev....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.