KAMAL PRASAD DUBEYversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

                 [2026] 5 S.C.R. 135 : 2026 INSC 353

                       Kamal Prasad Dubey
                               v.
             The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
                 (Civil Appeal No(s). 4350-4351 of 2026)
                                10 April 2026
           [Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the Division Bench of the High Court in its impugned
       order misdirected itself in its approach and reasoning to reverse
       the judgment of Single Judge for all the stated facts, reasons and
       circumstances, the non-acceptance of the case of the appellant
       for promotion to the post of Society Manager.

                                 Headnotes†
       Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Appellant
       having experience 28 years of working in the Society, came
       to be appointed as Sahayak Samiti Sevak vide order dated
       02.09.1987, on permanent basis – He had passed the Higher
       Secondary School Examination – In view of experience of
       the appellant, respondent no.5-Society passed a resolution
       dated 26.02.2014 deciding and resolving to promote the
       appellant from the post of Sahayak Samiti Prabandhak to
       Samiti Prabandhak (Society Manager) – Respondent no.
       5-Society in its meeting held on 02.07.2015 passed a resolution
       recommending the grant of relaxation in the educational
       qualification of the appellant for the purpose of promotion
       to the post of Society Manager – However, the Registrar
       rejected the proposal made by the Board of Directors which
       was also approved by the General Body, taking a stance that
       relaxation could not have been granted – The Single Judge
       of the High Court directed respondent no. 2-Registrar to pass
       order extending the benefit of relaxation in the educational
       qualification granting promotion to the appellant – The Division
       Bench of the High Court held that the Registrar was right in
       declining to grant the relaxation – Correctness:


* Author
136                                                             [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       Held: The Registrar, in approving two other employees for
       promotion and negativing and discarding the case of the appellant
       though all the three cases were attended by similar circumstances,
       acted arbitrarily – In the same way stands the case of the appellant
       who was also otherwise qualified and eligible, by extending
       the provision for relaxation in educational qualification, to be
       promoted to the post of Society Manager to sail in the same
       boat with the said two similarly situated employees – Thus, the
       case of the appellant is not one that the appellant seeks parity
       and equality for promotion with ineligibles or that he is not fit to
       be promoted – While on one hand, the Division Bench of the
       High Court in its impugned order recorded that the Registrar
       was within his jurisdiction to refuse the relaxation, it specifically
       observed in the previous paragraph of the impugned order that
       at the relevant time, the discretion for granting relaxation was
       vested with the Board of Directors of the society and not with the
       Registrar – The reasoning in the impugned order amounted to
       a clear contradiction – The equal treatment came to be denied
       to the appellant to his discrimination – It is to be noted that the
       appellant now holds the degree of M.A. and has also successfully
       completed the diploma in computers – The impugned order passed
       by the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable in law.
       [Paras 7.1, 7.2, 8.2, 9.1, 9.3, 10]

                                  List of Acts
       Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Constitution
       of India.

                               List of Keywords
       Service Law; Promotion; Educational Qualification; Equal treatment;
       Concept of equality; Doctrine of equality.

                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 4350-4351
       of 2026
       From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2019 and 17.12.2019
       of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at
       Jabalpur in WA No. 1758 of 2019 and RP No. 1665 of 2019,
       respectively.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                       137

     Kamal Prasad Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


                         Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Appellant(s):
      Ms. Ruchi Gupta, Anirudh Sharma.
      Advs. for the Respondent(s):
      Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Mrs. Pratima Singh,
      Arpit Garg, Ms. Sakshi, Chand Qureshi, Vijay Kumar, Sundeep
      Pandhi, Nand Ram.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

      N.V. Anjaria, J.

      Leave granted.
2.    Discrimination is the other name of injustice.
      2.1 The challenge in these appeal addressed by the appellant-
          original petitioner to the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the
          Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur,
          allowing Writ Appeal No. 1758 of 2019, and to order dated
          17.12.2019 dismissing the corresponding Review Petition No.
          1665 of 2019, deserves to be considered in light of the above
          principle.
      2.2 The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 12814 of 2016 before
          learned Single Judge of the High Court in which he challenged
          order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner-cum-
          Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal-respondent No. 2
          herein, whereby the request of respondent No. 5- Primary
          Agricultural Cooperative Society for relaxing the educational
          qualification of the appellant for the promotion to the post of
          Society Manager came to be rejected.
      2.3 Learned Single Judge of the High Court, by his order
          dated 22.01.2019, allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside
          the aforementioned order dated 07.06.2016, and directed
          respondent No. 2-Registrar to pass order extending the benefit
          of relaxation in the educational qualification granting promotion
          to the appellant.
138                                                         [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       2.4 The Division Bench, however took the view, as per the impugned
           order, that the discretion to grant the relaxation was with the
           Board of Directors of the society, and not with the Registrar and
           that the appellant since did not have the necessary qualification,
           the Registrar was right in declining to grant the relaxation.
       2.5 It may be mentioned that this Court, in the present proceedings,
           by order dated 05.11.2020, directed that the appellant shall not
           be demoted, which has continued till date.
3.     Outlining the attendant facts, the appellant who is presently posted
       as Manager, Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society,
       Nayagaon, Panna District-respondent No. 5, a society registered
       under the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and
       has the experience of 28 years of working in the Society, came to
       be appointed as Sahayak Samiti Sevak vide order dated 02.09.1987,
       on permanent basis.
       3.1 The service conditions of the employees of the society are
           governed by the service rules framed by the Registrar of
           Cooperative Society in exercise of powers under Section 55(1)
           of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It was
           stated that the earlier Rules framed by order dated 09.10.1990
           came to be substituted with new Rules on 30.08.2013, repealing
           the old Rules. The appellant was appointed as Sahayak Samiti
           Sevak by order dated 02.09.1987. He had passed the Higher
           Secondary School Examination conducted by the Board of
           Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, in the year 1984.
       3.2 At the time when the appellant was appointed as Samiti Sevak,
           he was Higher Secondary passed, and had undergone various
           training programmes. By order dated 23.07.1996, he was
           deputed as Clerk in Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank. In view of
           experience of the appellant, respondent No.5-Society passed a
           resolution dated 26.02.2014 deciding and resolving to promote
           the appellant from the post of Sahayak Samiti Prabandhak to
           Samiti Prabandhak (Society Manager).
       3.3 One Mr. Sajid Ali was transferred on 19.06.2014 to respondent
           No.5-Society and came to be posted as Samiti Prabandhak,
           which was the post on which the appellant had already been
           working. In that view, when guidance was sought from the
           Registrar, by his communication dated 15.10.2015 the Registrar
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                         139

     Kamal Prasad Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


           accepted the recommendation made by the Assistant Registrar
           and allowed the appellant to continue on the post of Society
           Manager, having regard to his long work experience. It was
           provided that reasonable time may be given to him to acquire
           the necessary eligibility qualification of graduation as requisite
           under the new rules.
      3.4 Respondent No. 5-Society in its meeting held on 02.07.2015
          passed a resolution recommending the grant of relaxation in
          the educational qualification of the appellant for the purpose
          of promotion to the post of Society Manager, in light of the
          fact that under the old Rules, an employee possessing the
          educational qualification of Higher Secondary was eligible and
          that the appellant possessed such qualification, and further he
          had a long work experience. The General Body of the Society
          ratified the aforesaid resolution of the Board of Directors, in
          the General Body meeting held on 28.09.2015. However, the
          Registrar rejected the proposal made by the Board of Directors
          which was also approved by the General Body, taking a stance
          that relaxation could not have been granted.
      3.5 It is the case of the appellant, based on admitted facts, that
          one Sushil Kumar Tripathi, who also held the qualification of
          Higher Secondary, was promoted by order dated 29.02.2016.
          Similarly, another employee named Ram Swaroop Pandey, also
          a Higher Secondary pass, came to be appointed as Society
          Manager on 12.12.2014, who had 20 years’ work experience
          as against the work experience of more than 28 years to the
          credit of the appellant.
      3.6 As stated, under the old rules prevailing at the time of the
          appointment of the appellant, the educational qualification
          prescribed for the purpose of promotion to the higher post of
          Samiti Prabandhak (Society Manager) was Higher Secondary.
          In the new Rules which came into force on 30.08.2013, any
          additional qualification for the promotion to the said post was
          not prescribed.
4.    Heard learned advocate on record Ms. Ruchi Gupta with learned
      advocate Mr. Anirudh Sharma for the appellant and learned advocate
      Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 and
      learned advocate Mr. Chand Qureshi for respondent No.5.
140                                                          [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


5.     It is to be noted that when in the meeting of the Board of Directors
       of respondent No.5-Society passed resolution dated 02.07.2015 to
       consider the case of promotion of the appellant to the post of Samiti
       Prabandhak from the post of Sahayak Samiti Prabandhak and
       recommended him for promotion, several relevant considerations
       were taken into account as could be seen from the proceedings
       of the meeting figuring on record. It was noted in decision No.3
       corresponding to proposal No.3 that no employee of the cadre
       of Samiti Prabandhak has been posted during the last 5 months
       and that due to the same, the work of the institution had been
       suffering.
       5.1 It was noted that the appellant had been working in the Institution
           since last 26 years, having been appointed on 02.09.1987, and
           that his track record was clean and no charge of irregularities
           of any kind was levelled against him. Further, it was recorded
           that as the society had been receiving satisfactory services
           since last 26-27 years from the appellant, who was the
           senior-most employee, he was unanimously recommended for
           promotion in the interests of smooth conduct and working of the
           society.
       5.2 While ratifying the recommendation of the Board of Directors,
           the General Body in its meeting held on 28.09.2015 expressly
           noted that the proposal of the Board of Directors to promote
           the appellant on the basis of his long work experience was
           justified, that he was rendering regular services for the last 28
           years, and looking to his seniority, competence, and experience,
           the relaxation given in educational qualification was justified.
           It was unanimously decided by the General Body to submit
           the recommendation to the Commissioner-cum-Registrar,
           Cooperative Societies for his approval.
       5.3 It is to be noticed that the Registrar, by his communication
           dated 07.06.2016, which was the decision impugned in the writ
           petition, without assigning any reason and in a cryptic manner,
           rejected the proposal of the Board of Directors and the General
           Body for granting relaxation in the educational qualification to
           promote the appellant.
       5.4 The said communication dated 07.06.2016, whereby the
           proposal was filed, is extracted hereunder in its relevant part,
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                          141

   Kamal Prasad Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


           To,
           The Chairman,
           Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society
           Nayagaon District Panna M.P.
           Subject: Regarding grant of relaxation in educational
           qualification to Shri Kamal Prasad Dubey posted as Samiti
           Prabandhak in the Society.
           Reference:-Your Office Letter Number Q dated 15/10/2015,
           Please peruse the letter under reference under the above
           mentioned subject. By the letter under reference, proposal
           to grant relaxation in the educational qualification to Shri
           Kamal Prasad Dubey Samiti Prabandhak as per the
           proposal number 5 Decision number 5 dated 02/07/2015
           of the Board of directors has been forwarded.
           After examining the same, the aforesaid proposal is filed.
           (Approved by the Commissioner Cooperative)
                                                      Sd/- Illegible
                                          Additional Commissioner
                                      Cooperative, Madhya Pradesh
     5.5 At this stage, Rule 19-A of the Prathmic, Krishi Saakh Sahakari
         Sanstha, Vrihattakar Saakh Sahakari Sanstha, Adim Jati Sewa
         Sahakari Sewa Sanstha, Krishak Sewa Sahakari Sanstha
         Karmchari Sewa (Niyojan, Nibandhan, Tatha Karya Stithi) Niyam,
         2013 may be considered with relevance. It inter alia provided
         that upon acquiring the prescribed qualification, promotion to
         the various classes of posts shall be granted to the employees.
         It was stated that from Class II to Class I, promotion to the
         post of Samiti Prabandhak from the post of Sahayak Samiti
         Prabandhak/Accountant would be granted. It was stated that
         for the purpose of promotion, minimum 5 years’ tenure on
         the present post and acquiring of the prescribed educational
         qualification shall be compulsory requirement and that the
         criteria of promotion shall be seniority-cum-merit.
     5.6 Proviso to said Rule 19A becomes relevant in the facts of the
         case, which reads as under,
142                                                            [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                  ‘Provided that on the basis of employee’s special
                  experience/competence/seniority, relaxation in the
                  educational qualification for promotion may be granted
                  by the Registrar.’
       5.7 Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules, however, mentioned about
           eligibility criteria. It required that a person should have a
           graduation degree along with diploma/degree in computer
           application and further that a person holding graduation in
           Commerce and diploma/degree in Cooperative Management
           will be given preference. At the same time, as mentioned
           above, Proviso to Rule 19A contemplated about relaxation in
           the educational qualification to promote the employee on the
           post of Samiti Prabandhak on the basis of employees’ special
           experience/competence/seniority.
6.     Recollecting at this stage the relevant facts, when the appellant was
       appointed as an Assistant Society Manager in the year 1987 by
       the Board of Directors of respondent No. 5-Society, the educational
       qualification necessary for the purpose of appointment to the Society
       Manager was Higher Secondary. This was as per the Rules in force
       at that time. From 30.08.2013 in the new Rules, the qualifications for
       the post of Society Manager were revised to requirement of graduation
       with diploma in computer, and it was further provided that the relaxation
       in such educational qualification could be granted by the Registrar to
       the employees who had been working for more than 5 years.
       6.1 In light of the appellant’s experience of work, his case was
           recommended for promotion to the post of Society Manager by
           the Board of Directors and was approved and furthered by the
           General Body. The Registrar, by order dated 07.06.2016, did
           not grant the relaxation in educational qualification, refusing the
           recommendation of the Board of Directors and the General Body.
       6.2 There is no gainsaying that at all material times, the power to
           grant relaxation was available and was vested with the Board
           of Directors. In the case of the appellant, it was the Board of
           Directors which passed the resolution granting the relaxation
           to the appellant, exercising the powers duly vested in it. The
           Registrar could not have disapproved the resolution, once it
           was validly passed by the Board of Directors, which was a
           competent authority exercising its powers.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                             143

     Kamal Prasad Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


7.    In the entire scenario, what becomes conspicuous is that during the
      same period, two other employees named Sushil Kumar Tripathi and
      Ram Swaroop Pandey were recommended for promotion by the Board
      of Directors of the society and that the Registrar accepted those
      recommendations by his order. Both the above employees named
      Sushil Kumar and Ram Swaroop possessed the same qualification
      of Higher Secondary as that of the appellant at the time they were
      approved by the Registrar to be promoted upon recommendation
      by the Board of Directors.
      7.1 Sushil Kumar and Ram Swaroop could be grouped together
          to be the homogeneous class of persons to be approved for
          promotion, without inviting a breach of any law or statutory rule.
          The relaxation in educational qualification was permissible and
          the Board of Directors extended the same to the appellant in view
          of his long-standing service and work experience. The Registrar,
          in approving two other employees for promotion and negativing
          and discarding the case of the appellant though all the three
          cases were attended by similar circumstances, acted arbitrarily.
      7.2 It is not that said Sushil Kumar and Ram Swaroop were not
          eligible to be promoted and yet they were promoted. In the same
          way stands the case of the appellant who was also otherwise
          qualified and eligible, by extending the provision for relaxation in
          educational qualification, to be promoted to the post of Society
          Manager to sail in the same boat with the said two similarly
          situated employees. Thus, the case of the appellant is not one
          that the appellant seeks parity and equality for promotion with
          ineligibles or that he is not fit to be promoted. No concept of
          negative equality is attracted that the appellant is to be given
          equal treatment with those persons who are not eligible.
8.    Learned Single Judge could rightly notice the equality aspect as
      observed thus,
           ‘9. ...The respondents have also not denied the fact that
           other two persons namely Sushil Kumar Pandey and
           Ramswaroop Pandey, whose appointments have been
           placed on record as Annexure P-16 and P-17 have been
           given relaxation in their educational qualification. In view of
           the same this Court does not find any reason or justification
           to uphold the impugned order passed by the respondent
144                                                          [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            No.2 as reproduced herein above which is cryptic in
            nature and does not disclose any reason for rejection of
            relaxation in petitioner’s educational qualification for the
            post of Society Manager as has been recommended by
            the respondent No.5 in their resolution. Thus on merits as
            also on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled for
            relaxation in his educational qualification for his promotion
            to the post of Society Manager.’
       8.1 Even as the discriminatory treatment writ large in case of the
           appellant, the Division Bench, for no good reason, did not
           approve the finding of the learned Single Judge regarding
           discrimination. It was observed in paragraph 11 of the impugned
           order by the Division Bench that since the appellant did not
           have the necessary qualification to be promoted, the Registrar,
           Cooperative Societies, was well within his powers in declining
           to grant the relaxation, overlooking the fact that the relaxation
           was permissible under the rules itself.
       8.2 While on one hand, the Division Bench of the High Court in
           its impugned order recorded that the Registrar was within his
           jurisdiction to refuse the relaxation, it specifically observed in
           the previous paragraph 10 of the impugned order that at the
           relevant time, the discretion for granting relaxation was vested
           with the Board of Directors of the society and not with the
           Registrar. The reasoning in the impugned order amounted to
           a clear contradiction.
9.     While the Division Bench of the High Court in its impugned order
       misdirected itself in its approach and reasoning to reverse the
       judgment of Learned Single Judge for all the aforesaid facts, reasons
       and circumstances, the non-acceptance of the case of the appellant
       for promotion to the post of Society Manager, does not stand to
       reason, defies rationale, smothers reasonableness and does not
       hold good on merits.
       9.1 The equal treatment came to be denied to the appellant to his
           discrimination. The facts obtained strikingly attract the tenets of
           Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, to violate the fundamental
           concept of equality in law and equal treatment in the matters
           of employment. Substantive justice and real justice is always
           subserved by applying the doctrine of equality.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                        145

   Kamal Prasad Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


     9.2 In the year 2019, new Rules came into force. The educational
         qualification for the post of Society Manager came to be reframed
         to be lowered again and the requirement was re-enacted to
         Higher Secondary with one-year diploma in computer education.
         Order dated 01.11.2019, whereby the aforesaid qualification was
         provided for, figures on record, having been produced by the
         appellant. It further contemplated that if the person concerned
         does not possess the computer-related qualification, he would
         be granted one-year period to acquire such qualification.
     9.3 It is to be noted that the appellant has attained the said
         qualification in the year 2020. The appellant now holds the
         degree of M.A. and has also successfully completed the diploma
         in computers.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, the impugned
    order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya
    Pradesh, Jabalpur is rendered unsustainable in law. Resultantly,
    order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High
    Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No.1758 of 2019
    and order dated 17.12.2019 in Review Petition No.1665 of 2019,
    are hereby set aside.
11. The Appeals stand allowed.
     In view of the disposal of the Appeals, the interlocutory applications,
     as may be pending, shall not survive.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan