Full Judgment Text
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
J U D G M E N T
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
29.01.2024 of the Single Bench in W.P.(C) No. 4933 of 2021,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KANCHAN CHOUHAN
Date: 2025.12.05
14:44:19 IST
Reason:
whereby the appellant’s challenge to the termination of his
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
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
J U D G M E N T
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
29.01.2024 of the Single Bench in W.P.(C) No. 4933 of 2021,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KANCHAN CHOUHAN
Date: 2025.12.05
14:44:19 IST
Reason:
whereby the appellant’s challenge to the termination of his
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