The Supreme Court ruled that where the State acts in its contractual capacity, it does not shed its constitutional character and remains bound by the obligations of fairness, non-arbitrariness and reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Since, in the present case, the appellant had studied Statistics as a principal subject in his postgraduate course, and the competent departmental expert had expressly certified his eligibility, the Court pointed out that the insistence of the State on a contrary conclusion becomes arbitrary and unreasonable.
Emphasising that “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” must be understood contextually and purposively, the Court said that insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance.
The Court pointed out that in the absence of a reasonable classification or intelligible differentia, singling out the appellant for termination, while others similarly qualified candidates are retained, violates the guarantee of equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The appellant does not seek parity with persons lacking the required qualification; rather, he contends that he is similarly situated with those who have been found eligible based on their degrees in Statistics subjects, observed the Court.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed 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.
The record further discloses that other candidates possessing other degrees, with Statistics as principal subjects, were appointed and continue in service. The State has not furnished any rational basis to distinguish the appellant from such similarly qualified candidates, added the Bench.
Briefly, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D., prescribing the minimum qualification as: “Postgraduate degree in Statistics from a Government recognised University with at least 60% marks or equivalent grade”, the appellant had applied for the same, and after physical verification of his educational qualifications and experience, the appellant was contractually appointed and served for nearly one year. Subsequently, based on an 8-member Committee report, the appellant’s services were terminated.
In successive rounds of litigation, the Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D., issued an opinion stating that the appellant did possess the requisite Statistics components in his postgraduate curriculum and recommending restoration of his services. The Court therefore upheld the termination on the ground that the appellant did not possess a “degree in Statistics” as per the advertisement.
Appearances:
Advocate Siddharth R. Gupta, AOR Mrigank Prabhakar, along with Advocates , U.N. Pandey, Aman Agarwal, Uddaish Palya, Surbhi Saxena, Siddharth Sahu, and Astha Singh, for the Appellant
AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, along with Advocates Sarthak Raizada, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, and Akanksha Tomar, for the Respondent
