Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ANAND PATHAK, ANIL VERMA, JJ.
Dr. Gulab Singh Jatav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 279 of 2026
Decided On : 18-02-2026
Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 (M.P.) -- R. 8 Sch. III -- M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 -- Rr. 8 and 12 -- Fundamental Rules -- Rr. 24 and 9 -- petitioner was appointed on probation for two years -- during this period, he was required to obtain qualification of NET/SLET/PhD -- Higher Education Department extended said period up to 2017 -- he was confirmed in service w.e.f. 28.4.2017, i.e., after he acquired PhD qualification -- grievance of petitioner is that he ought to have been confirmed in service on completion of two years in 2006 -- he claims that acquisition of PhD qualification was not condition precedent for his confirmation in service -- held -- appointment of petitioner was contingent to acquisition of qualification -- if qualification would not have been acquired then he was required to be removed -- it was the duty of petitioner to have acquired necessary qualification but petitioner took 13 long years to attain such qualification -- a person who was to be removed, got continued in employment because of extension of period for acquisition of qualification -- petitioner cannot be permitted to receive premium for his own failure -- petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 28.4.2017 and was held to be entitled for increments after acquisition of qualification then his seniority may also be computed accordingly -- petitioner is seeking negative parity with other candidates -- relaxation was given because it was a special drive for filling up backlog vacancies -- it cannot be construed as mechanism to dehors the law settled by Full Bench in the case of Manoj Kumar Purohit -- all Assistant Professors etc. would only be entitled to get benefit of completion of probation and grant of increments after date of acquisition of qualification, not before -- any anomaly and aberration does not entitle petitioner to claim benefit on basis of discrimination -- appeal dismissed. (1996) 11 SCC 173 followed. 2016 (1) MPLJ 449 relied on. 2021 (2) JLJ 331 = 2021 (2) MPLJ 500 (FB), (2022) 4 SCC 404, (2010) 6 SCC 791 and (1984) 4 SCC 329 referred to. 2026 (1) JLJ 174 affirmed. [Paras 14 to 16, 22 & 23]
'kS{kf.kd lsok ¼egkfo|ky;hu 'kk[kk½ HkrhZ fu;e] 1990 ¼e-Á-½ & fu- 8 vuqlwph 3 & e-Á- flfoy lsok ¼lsok dh lk/kkj.k 'krsZ½ fu;e] 1961 & fu- 8 rFkk 12 & ewy fu;e fu- 24 rFkk 9 & ;kph dks nks o"kZ dh ifjoh{kk ij fu;qä fd;k x;k & bl vof/k ds nkSjku mlds }kjk usV@LysV@ih,pMh dh vgZrk vfHkçkIr dh tkuk visf{kr Fkh & mPp f'k{kk foHkkx us mä vof/k 2017 rd cढ+k nh & 28-4-2017 ls] vFkkZr~ mlds }kjk ih,pMh vgZrk vftZr fd, tkus ds i'pkr] lsok esa mldh iqf"V dh xbZ & ;kph dh f'kdk;r gS fd lsok esa mldh iqf"V nks o"kZ iw.kZ gksus ij vFkkZr~ 2006 esa dh tkuk pkfg, Fkh & mldk nkok gS fd lsok esa mldh iqf"V fd, tkus ds fy, ih,pMh dh vgZrk vftZr djuk iwoZ 'krZ ugha Fkh & vfHkfuèkkZfjr & ;kph dh fu;qfä vgZrk ds vtZu ij lekfJr Fkh & vgZrk vftZr ugha dh tkrh rks mls gVk;k tkuk visf{kr Fkk & vko';d vgZrk vftZr djuk ;kph dk drZO; Fkk ijarq ;kph us mä vgZrk çkIr djus ds fy, 13 yacs o"kZ fy, & ftl O;fä dks gVk;k tkuk Fkk og vgZrk ds vtZu ds fy, vof/k cढ+k, tkus ds dkj.k fu;kstu esa cuk jgk & ;kph dks Lo;a dh vlQyrk ds fy, iqjLÑr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ;kph dh iqf"V 28-4-2017 ls dh xbZ vkSj mls vgZrk ds vtZu ds mijkar osruo`f) ds fy, gdnkj ekuk x;k rks mldh T;s"Brk Hkh rnuqlkj laxf.kr dh tk,xh & ;kph vU; vH;fFkZ;ksa ls udkjkRed lkE;k dh bZIlk dj jgk gS & 'kSfFkY; blfy, fd;k x;k Fkk fd ;g lafp=u Hkjs x, in Hkjus ds fy, fo'ks"k vfHk;ku Fkk & bldk vFkkZUo;u eukst dqekj iqjksfgr ds ekeys esa iw.kZ U;k;ihB }kjk fLFkj dh xbZ fof/k ls ckgj fØ;kfof/k ds :i esa ugha fd;k tk ldrk & lHkh lgk;d vkpk;Z vkfn vgZrk ds vtZu ds fnukad ds i'pkr~ gh ifjoh{kk ds iw.kZ gksus vkSj osruo`f);ksa dk Qk;nk çkIr djus ds gdnkj gksaxs] mlls iwoZ ugha & fdlh Hkh fo"kerk vkSj foiFku ls ;kph foHksn ds vk/kkj ij Qk;ns dk nkok djus dk gdnkj ugha gksrk & vihy [kkfjtA ¼1996½ 11 ,llhlh 173 vuqlfjrA 2016 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 449 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA 2021 ¼2½ ts,yts 331 % 2021 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 500 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] ¼2022½ 4 ,llhlh 404] ¼2010½ 6 ,llhlh 791 rFkk ¼1984½ 4 ,llhlh 329 fufnZ"VA 2026 ¼1½ ts,yts 174 vfHkiq"VA ¼iSjk 14 ls 16] 22 ,oa 23½
JUDGMENT :
ANAND PATHAK, J.
1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellant/petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 10-12-2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23740 of 2022 whereby the writ petition filed by appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that in response to a special drive initiated by Higher Education Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh for filling up backlog posts of Assistant Professor, applications were invited vide advertisement dated 10-07-2003 (Annexure P/2 of writ petition) and appellant/petitioner appeared in the examination. Clause 7 of the Advertisement provided that candidates are required to ensure that they possess necessary educational qualification. As per relevant rules, educational qualification was at the relevant point of time passing of National Eligibility Test (NET) or Madhya Pradesh State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) or Ph.D. holder.
3. However, a corrigendum to the advertisement was issued on 02-10-2003 (Annexure P/3) prescribing the necessary educational qualification for appointment on the post stipulating NET/SLET/Ph.D. holder. However, it was stipulated that the candidate who was not having such qualification as referred above then their appointments would be subject to acquisition of qualification within two years otherwise their appointments had to be terminated. It was further stipulated that this special relaxation was given by General Administration Department (GAD) only as one time relaxation.
4. Petitioner successfully participated in the recruitment process and was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor vide order dated 14-06-2004 (Annexure P/7). He submitted his joining on 12-07- 2004. Subsequently, appointment order was amended vide order dated 27-12-2004 by incorporating the condition of acquisition of NET/SLET/Ph.D. within two years. In other words, petitioner had to acquire the qualification till end of year 2006 at best as latest period for acquisition of qualification.
5. It further appears that Higher Education Department vide order dated 09-06-2006 extended the time to acquire qualification by two years. However, it was clear that petitioner's appointment on the post of Assistant Professor was on probation for a period of two years and during the period of two years, he was required to obtain qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D. This process continued and later on, vide order dated 27-09-2017 (Annexure P/12), said period was extended upto year 2017.
6. During this period, petitioner did not acquire qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D. and ultimately awarded Ph.D. vide notification dated 24-07-2017. Accordingly, vide order dated 28-01-2019 (Annexure P/1) petitioner got confirmation in service w.e.f. 28-04- 2017 that is the day after he acquired qualification. This is the bone of contention.
7. Petitioner preferred writ petition but suffered. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court. Grievance of petitioner is that his appointment was on probation for a period of two years, therefore, he ought to have been confirmed in service on completion of two years i.e. on 14-06-2006. Therefore, according to him, acquisition of Ph.D. qualification was not condition precedent for his confirmation in service.
8. According to him, condition for acquiring Ph.D. qualification was not incorporated in his order of appointment but it is subsequently incorporated vide order dated 27-12-2004. Therefore, it is not binding on him. Once petitioner is appointed against the post, he is entitled to draw increments.
9. It is the grievance of petitioner that because of delay in confirmation of service, petitioner is deprived from the benefit of increments as well as seniority for very long period of time. Petitioner refers rule 12(1) (f) of M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1
Promotion is not a vested right and an employee only has the right to be considered for promotion.
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
Though the rejection of the candidatures of the petitioners appear to be on the ground of not acquiring the TET qualification within a particular age, it is an admitted fact that all the petitioners ....
Compassionate appointments governed by rules at employee's death time; later executive instructions cannot override statutory rules or prejudice due to delay.
Service Matter - The concerned decision taking Authority has power to appoint the candidate for the post of Adhyapak Sahayak by relaxing the condition of NET/SLAT or Ph.D. It also appears that the pr....
Candidates must fulfill requisite qualifications at the time of appointment; failure to do so renders the appointment void ab initio.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
