Candidate Cannot Be Rejected If Requisite Principal Subject Is Studied Despite Different Specialisation And Degree Title : Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s orders and directed reinstatement of a Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant in the State’s water department with consequential benefits. In a service dispute concerning an advertisement that required a postgraduate degree in Statistics, the Court held that when a candidate has studied Statistics as a principal subject in a recognised postgraduate programme, candidature cannot be rejected solely because the degree is formally described under a different specialisation. Applying this, the Bench found that an M.Com (Commerce) postgraduate who studied Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as core subjects satisfied the prescribed qualification and that termination of his contractual engagement was unjustified.
The dispute arises from the appointment of a Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant in the Water Support Organization, State Water Mission, Public Health and Engineering Department, Madhya Pradesh. Pursuant to an advertisement requiring a postgraduate degree in Statistics with at least 60% marks, the appellant applied relying on an M.Com (Commerce) degree completed in 1999, in which Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics were studied as principal subjects. After verification of qualifications and experience, the appellant was appointed on contract in April 2013 and joined in May 2013.
Following complaints regarding eligibility, an eight-member inquiry committee examined the educational records and concluded that the appellant did not possess a postgraduate degree in Statistics. On this basis, the services were first terminated in October 2013. In subsequent proceedings, the High Court set aside termination orders and directed reconsideration, during which the Director of the department issued an opinion in November 2019 confirming that the appellant’s curriculum contained the requisite Statistics components, and the College/University issued a certificate in March 2019 to the same effect. Despite these documents, further termination orders were passed in November 2018 and May 2020.
The appellant contended that the inquiry was conducted without proper hearing, that similarly qualified persons were retained, and that the decision lacked rational basis. The State authorities argued that only a formal postgraduate degree in Statistics satisfied the advertisement, that inclusion of statistical papers within an M.Com did not create equivalence, and relied on recruitment rules and precedents including Zahoor Ahmad Rather, Unnikrishnan C.V., and Shifana P.S. to submit that courts cannot expand prescribed qualifications.
The Court first observed that "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.’" It recorded that "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."
Assessing this contention, the Bench stated that "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." It added that "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."
Examining the termination, the Court recorded that "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." It found that "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," and that "the report was prepared without affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard, thus violating the fundamental principles of natural justice." It concluded that "the continued reliance on the said report… renders the said orders arbitrary, uninformed and unsustainable in law."
The Court further noted that "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," and that "the State has not furnished any rational basis to distinguish the appellant from such similarly qualified candidates." It clarified that "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."
The Court directed: “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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Siddharth R. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Un Pandey, Adv. Mr. Aman Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Uddaish Palya, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Saxena, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Sarthak Raizada, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rahul, Adv.
Case Title: Laxmikant Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1385
Case Number: SLP (C) No. 18907 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
