Discriminatory denial of promotional relaxation to similarly situated employees violates Articles 14 and 16.

The Appellant, appointed as Sahayak Samiti Sevak in 1987, sought promotion to Society Manager

Under the rules framed via Section 55(1) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the qualification for promotion was initially Higher Secondary, but new 2013 Rules mandated graduation

Despite the Appellant’s 28 years of experience, the Registrar rejected the Society’s recommendation to relax the educational qualification for him under Rule 19-A

Conversely, two other employees with identical qualifications (Sushil Kumar Tripathi and Ram Swaroop Pandey) were granted relaxations and promoted

The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Appellant’s writ petition on grounds of parity, but the Division Bench reversed this, holding that the Registrar had the discretion to refuse the relaxation as the Appellant lacked the prescribed qualification

1. Whether the Registrar’s refusal to grant educational relaxation to the Appellant, while granting it to similarly situated employees, was arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

2. Whether the Division Bench erred in upholding the Registrar’s order despite the Board of Directors having the primary discretion to recommend relaxation under the statutory rules

The court primarily applied the Service Rules (2013) framed under Section 55(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960

Specifically, the Proviso to Rule 19-A empowers the Registrar to grant relaxation in educational qualifications for promotion based on an employee’s special experience, competence, or seniority

The court further relied on the constitutional mandates of Articles 14 and 16, which prohibit arbitrary discrimination and ensure equal treatment in matters of public employment

It emphasized that discretionary power must be exercised reasonably and that "discrimination is the other name of injustice"

The court reasoned that the Registrar’s decision was unsustainable due to patent discrimination and procedural irrationality.

It observed that the Board of Directors—the competent authority—had passed a valid resolution for relaxation based on the Appellant's 28-year unblemished record, yet the Registrar rejected it through a cryptic, unreasoned order

The court highlighted a violation of the principle of parity: two other employees with the same Higher Secondary qualification were approved for promotion, creating a homogeneous class from which the Appellant was arbitrarily excluded

The court found the Division Bench’s reasoning contradictory, as it acknowledged that discretion lay with the Board but simultaneously held the Registrar was right to ignore that discretion

Furthermore, the court noted that the 2013 graduation requirement was subsequently lowered back to Higher Secondary in 2019, which the Appellant now satisfies

The Court held that the Appellant was entitled to the relaxation of educational qualifications for promotion to Society Manager on the grounds of both merit (long service/seniority) and parity with similarly situated employees

The Registrar’s refusal was deemed a violation of Article 14 and 16, and the earlier order of the Single Judge directing the grant of promotion was effectively upheld