Kamal Prasad Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

2026 INSC 353 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS._____ OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13578-13579 of 2020)

KAMAL PRASAD DUBEY …APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

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

Signature Not Verified Review Petition No. 1665 of 2019, deserves to be considered Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2026.04.10 17:38:24 IST Reason: in light of the above principle.

Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 1 of 17 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.

Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 2 of 17 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 Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 3 of 17 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 Society Manager, having regard to

his long work experience. It was provided that reasonable

Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 4 of 17 time may be given to him to acquire the necessary eligibility

qualification of graduation as requisite under the new rules.

3.4 Respondent No. 5-Society in its meeting held on

02.07.2015 passed a resolution recommending the grant of

relaxation in the educational qualification of the appellant

for the purpose of promotion to the post of Society Manager,

in light of the fact that under the old Rules, an employee

possessing the educational qualification of Higher

Secondary was eligible and that the appellant possessed

such qualification, and further he had a long work

experience. The General Body of the Society ratified the

aforesaid resolution of the Board of Directors, in the General

Body meeting held on 28.09.2015. However, the Registrar

rejected the proposal made by the Board of Directors which

was also approved by the General Body, taking a stance that

relaxation could not have been granted.

3.5 It is the case of the appellant, based on admitted

facts, that one Sushil Kumar Tripathi, who also held the

qualification of Higher Secondary, was promoted by order

dated 29.02.2016. Similarly, another employee named Ram

Swaroop Pandey, also a Higher Secondary pass, came to be Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 5 of 17 appointed as Society Manager on 12.12.2014, who had 20

years’ work experience as against the work experience of

more than 28 years to the credit of the appellant.

3.6 As stated, under the old rules prevailing at the time

of the appointment of the appellant, the educational

qualification prescribed for the purpose of promotion to the

higher post of Samiti Prabandhak (Society Manager) was

Higher Secondary. In the new Rules which came into force

on 30.08.2013, any additional qualification for the

promotion to the said post was not prescribed.

4. Heard learned advocate on record Ms. Ruchi Gupta

with learned advocate Mr. Anirudh Sharma for the appellant

and learned advocate Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela for

respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 and learned advocate Mr.

Chand Qureshi for respondent No.5.

5. It is to be noted that when in the meeting of the

Board of Directors of respondent No.5-Society passed

resolution dated 02.07.2015 to consider the case of

promotion of the appellant to the post of Samiti Prabandhak

from the post of Sahayak Samiti Prabandhak and

Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 6 of 17 recommended him for promotion, several relevant

considerations were taken into account as could be seen

from the proceedings of the meeting figuring on record. It

was noted in decision No.3 corresponding to proposal No.3

that no employee of the cadre of Samiti Prabandhak has

been posted during the last 5 months and that due to the

same, the work of the institution had been suffering.

5.1 It was noted that the appellant had been working in

the Institution since last 26 years, having been appointed

on 02.09.1987, and that his track record was clean and no

charge of irregularities of any kind was levelled against him.

Further, it was recorded that as the society had been

receiving satisfactory services since last 26-27 years from

the appellant, who was the senior-most employee, he was

unanimously recommended for promotion in the interests of

smooth conduct and working of the society.

5.2 While ratifying the recommendation of the Board of

Directors, the General Body in its meeting held on

28.09.2015 expressly noted that the proposal of the Board

of Directors to promote the appellant on the basis of his long

work experience was justified, that he was rendering regular Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 7 of 17 services for the last 28 years, and looking to his seniority,

competence, and experience, the relaxation given in

educational qualification was justified. It was unanimously

decided by the General Body to submit the recommendation

to the Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Cooperative Societies

for his approval.

5.3 It is to be noticed that the Registrar, by his

communication dated 07.06.2016, which was the decision

impugned in the writ petition, without assigning any reason

and in a cryptic manner, rejected the proposal of the Board

of Directors and the General Body for granting relaxation in

the educational qualification to promote the appellant.

5.4 The said communication dated 07.06.2016, whereby

the proposal was filed, is extracted hereunder in its relevant

part,

To, The Chairman, Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Nayagaon District Panna M.P. Subject: Regarding grant of relaxation in educational qualification to Shri Kamal Prasad Dubey posted as Samiti Prabandhak in the Society.

Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 8 of 17 Reference:-Your Office Letter Number Q dated 15/10/2015, Please peruse the letter under reference under the above mentioned subject. By the letter under reference, proposal to grant relaxation in the educational qualification to Shri Kamal Prasad Dubey Samiti Prabandhak as per the proposal number 5 Decision number 5 dated 02/07/2015 of the Board of directors has been forwarded. After examining the same, the aforesaid proposal is filed.

(Approved by the Commissioner Cooperative) Sd/- Illegible Additional Commissioner Cooperative, Madhya Pradesh

5.5 At this stage, Rule 19-A of the 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, 2013 may be considered with

relevance. It inter alia provided that upon acquiring the

prescribed qualification, promotion to the various classes of

posts shall be granted to the employees. It was stated that

from Class II to Class I, promotion to the post of Samiti

Prabandhak from the post of Sahayak Samiti

Prabandhak/Accountant would be granted. It was stated

that for the purpose of promotion, minimum 5 years’ tenure

on the present post and acquiring of the prescribed Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 9 of 17 educational qualification shall be compulsory requirement

and that the criteria of promotion shall be seniority-cum-

merit.

5.6 Proviso to said Rule 19A becomes relevant in the

facts of the case, which reads as under,

‘Provided that on the basis of employee's special experience/competence/seniority, relaxation in the educational qualification for promotion may be granted by the Registrar.’

5.7 Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules, however, mentioned

about eligibility criteria. It required that a person should

have a graduation degree along with diploma/degree in

computer application and further that a person holding

graduation in Commerce and diploma/degree in

Cooperative Management will be given preference. At the

same time, as mentioned above, Proviso to Rule 19A

contemplated about relaxation in the educational

qualification to promote the employee on the post of Samiti

Prabandhak on the basis of employees’ special

experience/competence/seniority.

6. Recollecting at this stage the relevant facts, when the

appellant was appointed as an Assistant Society Manager in Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 10 of 17 the year 1987 by the Board of Directors of respondent No.

5-Society, the educational qualification necessary for the

purpose of appointment to the Society Manager was Higher

Secondary. This was as per the Rules in force at that time.

From 30.08.2013 in the new Rules, the qualifications for the

post of Society Manager were revised to requirement of

graduation with diploma in computer, and it was further

provided that the relaxation in such educational

qualification could be granted by the Registrar to the

employees who had been working for more than 5 years.

6.1 In light of the appellant's experience of work, his case

was recommended for promotion to the post of Society

Manager by the Board of Directors and was approved and

furthered by the General Body. The Registrar, by order dated

07.06.2016, did not grant the relaxation in educational

qualification, refusing the recommendation of the Board of

Directors and the General Body.

6.2 There is no gainsaying that at all material times, the

power to grant relaxation was available and was vested with

the Board of Directors. In the case of the appellant, it was

the Board of Directors which passed the resolution granting Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 11 of 17 the relaxation to the appellant, exercising the powers duly

vested in it. The Registrar could not have disapproved the

resolution, once it was validly passed by the Board of

Directors, which was a competent authority exercising its

powers.

7. In the entire scenario, what becomes conspicuous is

that during the same period, two other employees named

Sushil Kumar Tripathi and Ram Swaroop Pandey were

recommended for promotion by the Board of Directors of the

society and that the Registrar accepted those

recommendations by his order. Both the above employees

named Sushil Kumar and Ram Swaroop possessed the same

qualification of Higher Secondary as that of the appellant at

the time they were approved by the Registrar to be promoted

upon recommendation by the Board of Directors.

7.1 Sushil Kumar and Ram Swaroop could be grouped

together to be the homogeneous class of persons to be

approved for promotion, without inviting a breach of any law

or statutory rule. The relaxation in educational qualification

was permissible and the Board of Directors extended the

same to the appellant in view of his long-standing service Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 12 of 17 and work experience. The Registrar, in approving two other

employees for promotion and negativing and discarding the

case of the appellant though all the three cases were

attended by similar circumstances, acted arbitrarily.

7.2 It is not that said Sushil Kumar and Ram Swaroop

were not eligible to be promoted and yet they were promoted.

In the same way stands the case of the appellant who was

also otherwise qualified and eligible, by extending the

provision for relaxation in educational qualification, to be

promoted to the post of Society Manager to sail in the same

boat with the said two similarly situated employees. Thus,

the case of the appellant is not one that the appellant seeks

parity and equality for promotion with ineligibles or that he

is not fit to be promoted. No concept of negative equality is

attracted that the appellant is to be given equal treatment

with those persons who are not eligible.

8. Learned Single Judge could rightly notice the

equality aspect as observed thus,

‘9. ...The respondents have also not denied the fact that other two persons namely Sushil Kumar Pandey and Ramswaroop Pandey, whose appointments have been placed on record as

Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 13 of 17 Annexure P-16 and P-17 have been given relaxation in their educational qualification. In view of the same this Court does not find any reason or justification to uphold the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 as reproduced herein above which is cryptic in nature and does not disclose any reason for rejection of relaxation in petitioner's educational qualification for the post of Society Manager as has been recommended by the respondent No.5 in their resolution. Thus on merits as also on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled for relaxation in his educational qualification for his promotion to the post of Society Manager.’

8.1 Even as the discriminatory treatment writ large in

case of the appellant, the Division Bench, for no good

reason, did not approve the finding of the learned Single

Judge regarding discrimination. It was observed in

paragraph 11 of the impugned order by the Division Bench

that since the appellant did not have the necessary

qualification to be promoted, the Registrar, Cooperative

Societies, was well within his powers in declining to grant

the relaxation, overlooking the fact that the relaxation was

permissible under the rules itself.

8.2 While on one hand, the Division Bench of the High

Court in its impugned order recorded that the Registrar was

within his jurisdiction to refuse the relaxation, it specifically

Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 14 of 17 observed in the previous paragraph 10 of the impugned

order that at the relevant time, the discretion for granting

relaxation was vested with the Board of Directors of the

society and not with the Registrar. The reasoning in the

impugned order amounted to a clear contradiction.

9. While the Division Bench of the High Court in its

impugned order misdirected itself in its approach and

reasoning to reverse the judgment of Learned Single Judge

for all the aforesaid facts, reasons and circumstances, the

non-acceptance of the case of the appellant for promotion to

the post of Society Manager, does not stand to reason, defies

rationale, smothers reasonableness and does not hold good

on merits.

9.1 The equal treatment came to be denied to the

appellant to his discrimination. The facts obtained strikingly

attract the tenets of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,

to violate the fundamental concept of equality in law and

equal treatment in the matters of employment. Substantive

justice and real justice is always subserved by applying the

doctrine of equality.

Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 15 of 17 9.2 In the year 2019, new Rules came into force. The

educational qualification for the post of Society Manager

came to be reframed to be lowered again and the

requirement was re-enacted to Higher Secondary with one-

year diploma in computer education. Order dated

01.11.2019, whereby the aforesaid qualification was

provided for, figures on record, having been produced by the

appellant. It further contemplated that if the person

concerned does not possess the computer-related

qualification, he would be granted one-year period to acquire

such qualification.

9.3 It is to be noted that the appellant has attained the

said qualification in the year 2020. The appellant now holds

the degree of M.A. and has also successfully completed the

diploma in computers.

10. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, the

impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur is rendered

unsustainable in law. Resultantly, order dated 11.11.2019

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh, Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No.1758 of 2019 and Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 16 of 17 order dated 17.12.2019 in Review Petition No.1665 of 2019,

are hereby set aside.

11. The Appeals stand allowed.

In view of the disposal of the Appeals, the

interlocutory applications, as may be pending, shall not

survive.

……………………….……………..,J.

[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]

…………………………………..,J.

[N.V. ANJARIA] NEW DELHI;

APRIL 10, 2026.

Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13578-13579/2020 Page 17 of 17