Laxmikant Sharma vs State Of M.P

2025 INSC 1385 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 18907 OF 2025)

LAXMIKANT SHARMA … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

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

Signature Not Verified 29.01.2024 of the Single Bench in W.P.(C) No. 4933 of 2021, Digitally signed by KANCHAN CHOUHAN

whereby the appellant’s challenge to the termination of his Date: 2025.12.05 14:44:19 IST Reason:

contractual services, as Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 1 of 18 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.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 2 of 18

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.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 3 of 18

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,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 4 of 18 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 that many similarly qualified employees

remain in service, but this was wrongly rejected on the ground

of “negative equality”. Singling out the appellant for termination

on the basis of a degree title that is not offered anywhere in the

State is unjust and arbitrary.

16. It is stated that the High Court failed to appreciate that judicial

interference in academic matters is permissible where the

decision of the appointing authority is arbitrary, unjust, or

lacking rational basis. In the present case, the decision to

terminate the appellant suffers from these very defects and

therefore calls for interference.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 5 of 18

17. It is further submitted that the 8-member inquiry committee,

which recommended termination, did not provide the appellant

an opportunity to be heard or to produce his documents. The

first termination order dated 10.10.2013 was therefore passed

mechanically and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The High Court failed to recognise this fundamental procedural

defect.

18. The appellant challenged the first termination in WP(C) No.

19149/2013. The High Court stayed the termination on

13.12.2013 and, by its order dated 25.11.2014, set aside the

termination and remanded the matter to the State for fresh

consideration after affording the appellant a hearing. Despite

this direction, the State again terminated the appellant on

18.02.2015 without properly appreciating his eligibility.

19. In the second round of litigation (WP(C) No. 5023/2013), the

Single Bench again set aside the termination by order dated

27.09.2018 and directed a fresh and reasoned decision.

Pursuant to that remand, the Director, W.S.O., S.W.M.,

P.H.E.D. furnished a detailed opinion dated 23.11.2019 stating

that the appellant had pursued M.Com. with Business

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 6 of 18 Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects

and thus met the advertised requirement. The Director also

recommended continuation of the appellant’s appointment in

light of his one year’s satisfactory service. This communication

was overlooked by both the Single Bench and the Division

Bench.

20. Lastly, it is submitted that the appellant’s College/University,

by letter dated 30.03.2019, confirmed that the appellant’s

M.Com. curriculum included Business Statistics and Indian

Economic Statistics as principal courses. This conclusively

established that the appellant possessed the required academic

qualification, yet the High Court failed to give any weight to this

letter.

21. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

impugned judgment dated 20.09.2024 is liable to be set aside

and that the appellant be reinstated to the post of Monitoring

and Evaluation Consultant, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D., Bhopal,

Madhya Pradesh.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 7 of 18 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

22. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that

the advertisement explicitly required a Post-Graduate Degree in

Statistics with a minimum of 60% marks. The appellant,

however, possesses an M.Com. degree, which merely includes

two subjects - Business Statistics and Indian Economic

Statistics and does not amount to a Master's degree in the

discipline of Statistics. It is submitted that the appellant’s

qualification fails to meet the essential requirement for the post

of Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant and that mere

inclusion of statistical subjects in a different degree programme

cannot be treated as equivalence.

23. Learned counsel for the respondents further relied on the

multiple inquiry processes conducted. An 8-member inquiry

committee examined the qualifications of selected candidates

and concluded that the appellant did not possess a PG degree

in Statistics and had incorrectly declared his qualification as

“PG (Statistics)”. Based on this finding, the appellant’s

contractual engagement was terminated. The subsequent

representations filed by the appellant were duly considered

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 8 of 18 upon directions of the High Court, yet every competent

authority consistently reiterated that the appellant lacked the

requisite qualification. The final rejection order dated

14.05.2020 was therefore valid and consistent with the

recruitment rules.

24. Reliance was placed on Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v.

Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 404,

Unnikrishnan C.V. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2023

SCC OnLine SC 343, and Shifana P.S. v. State of Kerala &

Ors., (2024) 8 SCC 309, among others, to contend that judicial

review cannot expand the scope of prescribed qualifications or

deem a non-prescribed qualification equivalent.

25. Reliance was further placed on service jurisprudence that

recruitment must strictly comply with the prescribed rules, as

held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Kumar Sharma, (2006)

3 SCC 330 and Arup Das v. State of Assam, (2012) 5 SCC

559.

26. It is further submitted that claims of “negative equality” are

untenable. Even if similarly situated candidates were

erroneously retained, the appellant cannot demand

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 9 of 18 perpetuation of an illegality. Relying on Tinku v. State of

Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3292, and other decisions, it

is argued that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked

to extend benefits arising from an irregular or mistaken

appointment.

27. It is asserted that contractual employment does not confer any

right to renewal or continuation and can be terminated in

accordance with contract terms unless arbitrariness or mala

fides is demonstrated. Citing GRIDCO Ltd. v. Sadananda

Doloi, (2011) 15 SCC 16, it is argued that no constitutional

infraction arises in the appellant’s termination because it was

based solely on non-fulfilment of essential qualifications.

28. Thus, it is submitted that the appellant is unequivocally

unqualified for the post, that all actions taken were lawful and

justified and that the present appeal is meritless and is liable to

be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

29. We have given our careful consideration to the rival

submissions and perused the material placed on record.

30. The core issue for the determination before us is:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 10 of 18 A. the interpretation of the qualification “postgraduate degree

in Statistics” prescribed in the advertisement dated

07.11.2012; and

B. whether, in the facts of this case, the State’s decision of

terminating the appellant’s services satisfies the

standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness.

31. It is not disputed that the advertisement prescribed as the

minimum academic qualification a “Postgraduate degree in

Statistics from a Government recognised University with at least

60% marks or equivalent grade.” The appellant asserted that he

had pursued M.Com. with Business Statistics and Indian

Economic Statistics as principal subjects and that this satisfies

the academic qualification requirement of the post. The

appellant further assured, which is not disputed by the

respondents, that no Government university in Madhya

Pradesh offers a postgraduate course titled “M.Com (Statistics)”

or any standalone PG programme exclusively titled “Statistics”.

32. On perusal of such circumstances, we are of the opinion that

insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering

the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 11 of 18 substance. The law does not compel such an interpretation. In

our view, considering the facts of the present case, the

expression “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” must be

understood contextually and purposively.

33. We are conscious of the judicial pronouncements of this Court

which hold that the question whether a particular qualification

is “equivalent” to the one prescribed is primarily for the

employer or the expert body to decide and that the Court, in

exercise of judicial review, does not ordinarily sit in appeal over

such academic or policy determinations.

34. However, the present case, in our view, stands on a different

footing. The appellant is not seeking equivalence with a different

degree, rather, the appellant asserts that in fact he fulfils the

qualification as prescribed in the advertisement, when it is read

in a reasonable and purposive manner.

35. The decision of the termination of the appellant by the State is

based on the report of the 8-member Inquiry Committee dated

24.09.2013. On perusal, two infirmities vitiate reliance on this

report. First, in view of the subsequent certificate dated

30.03.2019 issued by Chhatrasal Government Postgraduate

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 12 of 18 College, Panna, Madhya Pradesh (affiliated to Dr. Harisingh

Gour University, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh) that the appellant

“passed M.Com. degree in (Business Statistics)”, the committee’s

opinion that “None of the subjects mentioned in the mark sheet

submitted by him is related to Statistics”, is therefore objectively

incorrect. Secondly, the report was prepared without affording

the appellant an opportunity of being heard, thus violating the

fundamental principles of natural justice.

36. However, the continued reliance on the said report in the

subsequent termination orders dated 02.11.2018 and

14.05.2020, without examining relevant and material

documents placed on record, renders the said orders arbitrary,

uninformed and unsustainable in law.

37. It is pertinent to note that the letter dated 23.11.2019 of the

Director, S.W.M., W.S.O., P.H.E.D., an expert authority, after

examining the appellant’s marksheets and curriculum,

categorically opined that the appellant satisfied the requirement

as prescribed in the advertisement and recommended

continuation of his services. The relevant paragraph of the said

letter reads as under:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 13 of 18 “It is worth mentioning here that the applicants Smt. Sweety Namdev and Shri Laxmikant Sharma have Master degrees in Economics and Commerce respectively which includes Quantitative Methods, Business Statistics and Economic Statistics which are statistical subjects whose certification has been issued by the concerned university. The applicants also have experience in government and non- government organizations for about 05 years. After the selection of the applicants, they worked for about a year. During this period, no adverse comment has been made by the controlling officers on their work which reflects their ability to fulfill the responsibilities of the post.

In the light of the educational qualification mentioned in point no. 05 of the report of the Committee on the application of the applicants, on the basis of the settlement factor facts from the Government level, for the remaining 11 contractual posts (District Advisor Monitoring and Evaluation cum Information Management) approved for resolution of the matter, the educational qualification for the year 2012-13 was kept the same by the Commission and the said affected persons can be accommodated in the process of filling the posts and in view of point no. 07, an appropriate solution is recommended.

Please take appropriate action at government level as per above.”

38. Thus, once the competent domain authority has taken a

considered view that the appellant meets the eligibility criteria

as prescribed in the advertisement, the State has given no

reason to ignore this expert opinion on record.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 14 of 18

39. The record further discloses that other candidates possessing

other degrees, with Statistics as principal subjects, were

appointed and continue in service. The State has not furnished

any rational basis to distinguish the appellant from such

similarly qualified candidates.

40. The contention of the respondents of “negative equality” under

Article 14 has no application to the facts and circumstances of

the present case. It is observed that the appellant does not seek

parity with persons lacking the required qualification, rather,

he contends that he is similarly situated with those who have

been found eligible on the basis of their degrees with Statistics

subjects. In the absence of a reasonable classification or

intelligible differentia, singling out the appellant for

termination, while others similarly qualified candidates are

retained, violates the guarantee of equal protection under

Article 14.

41. The respondents have also laid stress on the contractual nature

of the appellant’s employment and the limited scope of judicial

review in such matters. However, it is settled that even where

the State acts in its contractual capacity, it does not shed its

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 15 of 18 constitutional character and remains bound by the obligations

of fairness, non-arbitrariness and reasonableness under Article

14. The relevant paragraph of GRIDCO Ltd. (supra) reads as

under:

“39. A writ court is entitled to judicially review the action and determine whether there was any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality that would vitiate the action, no matter the action is in the realm of contract. Having said that we must add that judicial review cannot extend to the Court acting as an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the decision. The Court cannot sit in the armchair of the Administrator to decide whether a more reasonable decision or course of action could have been taken in the circumstances. So long as the action taken by the authority is not shown to be vitiated by the infirmities referred to above and so long as the action is not demonstrably in outrageous defiance of logic, the writ court would do well to respect the decision under challenge.”

42. Thus, where a contractual employee is terminated on the sole

ground of ineligibility, the Court is entitled to examine whether

that ground is factually correct and whether relevant material

was properly considered.

43. Therefore, once it is demonstrated that:

A. the appellant studied Statistics as principal subjects in his

postgraduate course; and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 16 of 18 B. the competent departmental expert (Director, S.W.M.,

W.S.O., P.H.E.D., expressly certified his eligibility,

the insistence of the State on a contrary conclusion becomes

arbitrary and unreasonable. The litigation history further shows

that despite repeated remand backs by the High Court, the

authorities failed to conduct a fair and comprehensive

reconsideration in the present matter.

CONCLUSION

44. For the said reasons, we hold that:

A. the appellant possessed the requisite academic

qualification when reasonably construed in the context of

the advertisement dated 07.11.2012 and the surroundings

circumstances; and

B. the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, affirming

the decision of the Single Bench, is unsustainable and

warrants interference of this Court.

45. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned

judgment dated 20.09.2024 in Writ Appeal No. 1536 of 2024,

affirming the judgment dated 29.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 4933

of 2021, is hereby set aside.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 17 of 18

46. If the appellant is otherwise not disqualified, the appellant shall

be restored to service on the post of Monitoring and Evaluation

Consultant, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D., within four weeks from

today. All consequential benefits shall follow.

47. Before parting, we clarify that this judgment is rendered in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the

conclusions herein shall not be treated as a precedent in any

other matter.

48. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

…………………………………J. [SANJAY KAROL]

…………………………………J. [VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 04, 2025

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025 Page 18 of 18