Denial of equality in employment is discrimination under Article 14 and 16
"Discrimination is the other name of injustice" is the quote in the beginning of judgment cited by Justice N.V Anjaria in present appeal passed by the Supreme Court.
The
Supreme Court of India considered the present appeal based on the above
principle. The reason for the present appeal is dismissal of Review Petition
filed by appellant – original petitioner. It is noted, the appellant had been
working in a Cooperative Society since last 26 years having been appointed in
1987. His track record was clean and charge of irregularities of any kind was
leveled against him [
FACTUAL MATRIX
The fact is the
appellant, who is presently Manager of the Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative
Society, had requested before Commissioner-cum-Registrar of the Cooperative
Societies for the relaxation of educational qualification which came to be
rejected. Being aggrieved, he filed writ petition before the learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The High Court allowed
the petition and directed the Registrar to pass order extending the benefit of
relaxation in the educational qualification granting promotion to the
appellant. However, the Division Bench to say that the discretion to grant the
relaxation was with the Board of Directors of the Society.
The
appellant, who is passed out of Higher Secondary School Examination, has the
experience of 29 years of working in the Society as Manager on permanent basis.
He had undergone various training programme. In 1996 he was deputed as Clerk in
Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank.
It is also revealed that reasonable time was
given to him to acquire the eligibility qualification of graduation as per the
new rules. However, based on his work experience, a resolution recommended the
grant of relaxation in the educational qualification of the appellant for the
purpose of promotion to the post of Society Manager. Since he was the
senior-most employee and free from charge of irregularities he was unanimously
recommended for promotion in the interests of smooth conduct and working of the Society. Unfortunately,
the resolution got rejected by the Registrar and General Body.
According
to the appellant two persons, who was also Higher Secondary passed was promoted
and appointed as Society Manager who had only 20 years of work experience as against
the work experience of more than 28 years of the appellant.
It was
noted, the Registrar without assigning reason in a cryptic manner, rejected the
proposal of the Board of Directors in 2016.
DECISION
The
fact that two other employees were recommended for promotion by Board of
Directors and accepted by the Registrar even though they possess same
qualification as that of the Appellant at the time of the approval was the
breach of law and statutory rule. According to Supreme Court the act of the
Registrar was arbitrary.
Read Also:
The Supreme
Court termed impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court as irrational.
It smothered reasonableness and does not hold good on merits.
The Court said the facts of the case very
much attract the tenets of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution because treatment
of equality was denied to the appellant thereby causing discrimination. It violated
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 – Supreme Court.
The Supreme
disposed off the appeal and pending application by setting aside the impugned
order of the Division Bench of High Court because the appellant has now attained
M.A. degree and successfully completed diploma in computers. The Court held the
impugned order of High Court as unsustainable in law.
Before Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date of Judgment: 10 April 2026.
0 Comments