Discrimination Is The Other Name Of Injustice: Supreme Court Grants Promotion Relief To Employee Denied Relaxation

The Supreme Court has set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that denied promotion to a cooperative society employee, holding that the refusal to grant relaxation in educational qualification despite granting similar relaxation to others amounted to discriminatory treatment violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that “discrimination is the other name of injustice” and emphasized that substantive justice requires adherence to the doctrine of equality in public employment.

Background

The case concerned an employee of a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society who had served for nearly three decades and was recommended by the society's Board of Directors for promotion to the post of Society Manager. The recommendation included relaxation of the educational qualification requirement based on his long service, seniority and experience.

While a Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the employee's plea and directed that the benefit of relaxation be granted, the Division Bench reversed the decision, holding that the employee lacked the requisite qualification and that the Registrar was justified in refusing relaxation.

The employee then approached the Supreme Court challenging the Division Bench judgment.

The Supreme Court observed that an employee cannot be denied promotion solely because a prescribed degree is absent when the applicable rules themselves provide for relaxation in favour of employees possessing special experience, competence, or seniority.

The Court observed that since the 2013 Service Rules expressly permit the Registrar to relax the prescribed educational qualifications for employees with over five years of service, the Registrar erred in interfering with the Board of Directors' decision to promote the appellant. It noted that the Board had justifiably granted such relaxation, taking into account the appellant's 28 years of continuous service, as well as his seniority, competence, and experience.

“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.”, the court observed.

Further, the Court noted the discrimination against the Appellant, as the other two similarly situated candidates, with the same Higher Secondary qualification, had been granted promotion under the same relaxation provision.

“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 sub served by applying the doctrine of equality.”, the Court observed.

The Court further observed that the High Court Division Bench had misdirected itself by overlooking the equality aspect and by adopting contradictory reasoning regarding the authority competent to grant relaxation.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, restoring the order of the Single Judge which granted the promotion to the Appellant with relaxation.

Cause Title: KAMAL PRASAD DUBEY VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ruchi Gupta, AOR Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR Mrs. Pratima Singh, Adv. Mr. Arpit Garg, Adv. Ms. Sakshi, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sundeep Pandhi, Adv. Mr. Nand Ram, Adv.