KAMAL PRASAD DUBEY versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2026] 5 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 10-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.