Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by Dr Gulab Singh Jatav, an assistant professor, who sought retrospective confirmation of his service and related benefits from 2006 instead of 2017.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anil Verma upheld the earlier decision of a Single Judge, ruling that confirmation in service was rightly granted only after the petitioner acquired the mandatory educational qualification, namely a PhD.
Jatav was appointed as an assistant professor in June 2004 under a special recruitment drive initiated by the Depart of Higher Education to fill backlog vacancies.
At the time of recruitment, candidates were required to possess NET, SLET, or a PhD.
However, a one-time relaxation was granted which allowed candidates to acquire the qualification within 2 years of appointment, failing which their services were liable to be terminated.
Although Jatav joined service in July 2004, he did not acquire the requisite qualification within the stipulated period.
The deadline was extended multiple times by the department and he ultimately obtained his PhD. in July 2017. Consequently, he was confirmed in service with effect from April 28, 2017.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that since his probation period was only two years, he should have been confirmed in 2006 and given seniority and salary increments from that time.
He also said that the requirement to obtain the required qualification was added later, so it should not apply to him.
The court disagreed. It said that the requirement to get the prescribed qualification was clearly mentioned in the recruitment advertisement and was necessary before confirmation.
The court also noted that the petitioner took almost 13 years to obtain the qualification, so he could not claim benefits for the time when he was not qualified.
Relying on a Full Bench judgment in Manoj Kumar Purohit vs State of MP and Supreme Court precedents, the court clarified that increments, confirmation and seniority flow only after fulfillment of mandatory service conditions.
Granting benefits prior to acquiring qualifications would amount to rewarding non-compliance, the court said.
The Bench also noted that any irregular benefits granted to similarly placed employees could not be used as a basis for claiming ‘negative parity.’
It directed the state authorities to ensure uniform application of the law so that no employee receives undue benefits without meeting eligibility conditions.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the court dismissed it.
