Summary
The Supreme Court restored a Single Judge's order directing relaxation of educational qualification for promotion of a long-serving cooperative society employee to Society Manager. The Registrar had, without reasons, rejected the society's recommendation while approving promotion of two similarly qualified employees, which was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16.
Issues
- Whether the Registrar's cryptic refusal to relax the educational qualification of the appellant for promotion to Society Manager, recommended by the Board of Directors and ratified by the General Body, was sustainable.
- Whether the appellant was discriminated against when two other employees with the same Higher Secondary qualification were promoted during the same period.
Provisions considered
- Rule 19A and its proviso; Rule 11, Service Rules, 2013 for employees of Primary Agricultural Credit and other cooperative societies, Madhya Pradesh (framed under Section 55(1), M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960)Rule 19A requires five years on the post and the prescribed qualification for promotion on seniority-cum-merit, and Rule 11 prescribes graduation; the proviso to Rule 19A permits relaxation of educational qualification for promotion on the basis of special experience, competence or seniority, so relaxation was permissible under the rules. (¶¶ 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 8.1)
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaDenial of promotion to the appellant while two similarly situated employees with the same qualification were approved was held to violate equality before law and equal treatment in employment. (¶ 9.1)
Held
- The Registrar's communication of 07.06.2016 rejected the proposal of the Board of Directors and the General Body without assigning any reason and in a cryptic manner. (¶¶ 5.3, 8)
- Two other employees holding the same Higher Secondary qualification were promoted with the Registrar's approval during the same period; refusing the appellant, whose case stood on similar facts and who had longer experience, was arbitrary. (¶¶ 3.5, 7, 7.1)
- This was not a claim to negative equality: the other two employees were not ineligibles, and the appellant was equally eligible once the permissible relaxation was extended to him. (¶ 7.2)
- The Division Bench overlooked that relaxation was permissible under the rules and its reasoning was internally contradictory; the denial of equal treatment attracted Articles 14 and 16. (¶¶ 8.1, 8.2, 9, 9.1)
Result
Appeals allowed; Division Bench order dated 11.11.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 1758 of 2019 and order dated 17.12.2019 in Review Petition No. 1665 of 2019 set aside.