Court can examine contractual employee termination on sole ground of ineligibility

Where a contractual employee is terminated on the sole ground of ineligibility, the Court is entitled to examine its correctness – SC

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where a contractual employee is terminated on the sole ground of ineligibility, the Court is entitled to examine whether that ground is factually correct and whether relevant material was properly considered. Terminating one employee, while retaining other similarly qualified candidates, violates the guarantee of equal protection under Article 14.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4910 (2025) (12) abcaus.in SC

In the instant case, the appellant had challenged the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby the appellant’s termination of his contractual services was upheld.

The appellant held an M.Com. (Commerce) degree. As part of the curriculum, he had studied Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects.

The appellant had applied for a contractual position as consultant in pursuant to an advertisement by State Water Mission which prescribed the minimum qualification in terms of a Postgraduate degree in Statistics with at least 60% marks or equivalent grade.

The appellant was appointed on contract and joined service and served for nearly one year. Subsequently, an 8-member Committee submitted a report stating that the appellant did not possess the required qualification (degree in statistics ) for the post. This led to termination of the appellant.

The High Court set aside the termination orders and directed the authorities to reconsider the matter after granting the appellant a fair opportunity.

During reconsideration proceedings, the appellant produced a certificate issued by the appellant’s College/University, stating that the appellant’s M.Com. degree included Business Statistics as a principal subject; and an opinion issued by the Director, Water Support Organisation of the Project Implementing Authority, stating that the appellant did possess the requisite Statistics components in his postgraduate curriculum and recommending restoration of his services.

Despite these documents, the State again terminated the appellant reiterating that he lacked the requisite qualification. The Hon’ble High Court upheld the cause of the termination.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that State insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounted to elevating form over substance. The law does not compel such an interpretation. The expression “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” must be understood contextually and purposively.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the appellant was not seeking equivalence with a different degree, rather, the appellant was asserting that in fact he fulfilled the qualification as prescribed in the advertisement, when it is read in a reasonable and purposive manner.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noted the Director, State Water Mission who was an expert authority, after examining the appellant’s marksheets and curriculum, categorically opined that the appellant satisfied the requirement as prescribed in the advertisement and recommended continuation of his services. However, despite the competent domain authority taking a considered view that the appellant met the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the advertisement, the State had given no reason to ignore this expert opinion on record. Also, the State had not furnished any rational basis to distinguish the appellant from such similarly qualified candidates.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in the absence of a reasonable classification or intelligible differentia, singling out the appellant for termination, while others similarly qualified candidates were retained, violated the guarantee of equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that it is settled that even 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.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a contractual employee is terminated on the sole ground of ineligibility, the Court is entitled to examine whether that ground is factually correct and whether relevant material was properly considered.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appellant possessed the requisite academic qualification when reasonably construed in the context of the specific advertisement and the surroundings circumstances.

As a result, the appeal was allowed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• AO can’t take two different stands on immunity u/s 270AA(2) for a same transaction
• ITAT held 2000 gram jewellery reasonable in view of customary practices & CBDT Instruction
• Documents obtained post search & information obtained from public domain not incriminating material
• No second reopening for unexplained credits in bank due to bank’s name change
• FDCM invites application for empanelment of practising CAs/ Chartered Accountant Firms