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: 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.