Experience Gained By Discharging Duties 'For A Long' Time Is Enough To Hold That Employee Is Qualified For Post: MP High Court Reiterates

The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that experience gained by discharging duties for a long period of time is sufficient to hold that an employee has the requisite qualifications.

In doing so, Justice Sanjay Dwivedi allowed a man's plea who was terminated from service as a Driver noting that apart from him not having the required educational qualification there were no other lacunae shown by the authority showing any deficiency in his driving. It thereby termed his dismissal as unjust. 

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990), Justice Sanjay Dwivedi observed, "Thus, it is clear that the observation made by the Supreme Court has made the picture clear that experience gained by discharging duties for a long is sufficient to hold that the employee is having requisite qualification. The petitioner rendering services on the post of Driver for a considerable period of 25 years has gained sufficient experience to become a perfect Driver. However, apart from educational qualification, there is no other lacuna on the part of the petitioner showing any deficiency in his driving, as such, dismissal order of the petitioner on that count alone, in my opinion, is unjust and unreasonable”. 

The court was hearing a petition challenging an order terminating the petitioner's services passed on the basis of an enquiry report in a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Boiler Attendant/Driver in the year 1997 against the vacant post of Driver. Thereafter, in 1998, the services of the petitioner as a Driver were regularized in the department.

In 2020, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice for initiation of a departmental enquiry against him and was asked to submit his explanation and thereafter enquiry was conducted so as to test the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Driver. As per the enquiry report, the petitioner at the time of appointment on the post of Driver did not have the requisite educational qualification certificate of 8th class pass–as per the circular issued by the General Administration Department.

Therefore, looking at the long service tenure of the petitioner, it was opined by the Enquiry Officer that a sympathetic decision may be taken in the matter. However, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service in 2021. Thereafter, the appellate authority also dismissed the petitioner's appeal pursuant to which he moved the high court. 

The main issue before the Court was whether the services of the petitioner could be dismissed only on the ground that at the time of appointment, he did not have the requisite qualification.

The court opined that the action of the respondents was unreasonable, unjust and arbitrary for the reason that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1997 and after a long lapse of almost 25 years, the respondents have not only taken a decision for initiating an enquiry so as to test the petitioner's appointment on the post of Driver on the ground of his educational qualification, but on that lacuna alone they have terminated the petitioner from service.

“…the post of Driver has nothing to do with the educational qualification because practically it has no significance that the Driver is having 8th class pass certificate or not. Driver having a degree of Engineering or Doctorate cannot be a good driver but even an ill-literate person can be an experienced driver,” the Court said.

Further, with regard to the requisite educational qualification as per the circular issued by the General Administration Department, the court said, “…it does not reveal any clarity about the educational qualification for the post of Driver but on the contrary, it clarifies that if a Driver is regularized in work charged contingency establishment, then the Authority should consider whether the said Driver is 8th class pass or having driving license.”

The court said that it is evident that by appointing the petitioner to the post of Boiler Attendant and thereafter giving him a regular pay scale which was equal to the post of Driver, the authority did not consider the aspect as to whether the petitioner had requisite qualification or not. Thus, no departmental proceeding should have been initiated so as to test the validity of the petitioner's appointment on the post of Driver that too only on the ground that the he did not have the 8th class pass certificate.

Thus, the court allowed the present petition and quashed the impugned orders by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

“The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and permit him to join if he has not attained the age of superannuation so far. Naturally, the petitioner would be paid arrears of wages within a period of three months from the date of submitting a copy of this order. If the same is not done, the arrears so calculated would carry interest @8% till actual payment is made to the petitioner,” the Court said.

Case Title: Ram Dayal Yadav Versus State of M.P. And Others, Writ Petition No.17607 of 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 29

Click Here To Read/Download Order