Laxmikant Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh

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, 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.

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 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.

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 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 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:

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 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