Reverting an Employee After 35 Years Without Allegation of Fraud Is Harsh and Unjust : Supreme Court Protects Career of Deputy Registrar While Upholding Promotion of Rival

“Once Appointed with Chief Justice’s Approval and Continuously Promoted, Employee Gains Experience Even If Initial Qualifications Were Allegedly Deficient” — Supreme Court Applies Buddhi Nath Principle

In a significant ruling  Supreme Court of India held that an employee cannot be reverted from service after more than 35 years merely due to alleged lack of qualifications at the time of appointment, in the absence of any fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment.

The judgment came in Case titled Prashant P. Gade v. Mehfooz Ahmad & Anr., where a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta partly set aside a May 24, 2024 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had reverted Prashant P. Gade from the post of Deputy Registrar to a position below Stenographer, while granting retrospective promotion to Mehfooz Ahmad.

Describing the High Court’s reversion order as “unfair and unreasonable”, the Supreme Court maintained Ahmad’s claim to seniority but shielded Gade’s long-standing service from retrospective invalidation.

The controversy began in 2018, when Mehfooz Ahmad, who had joined as a Stenographer in 1985 and later earned promotions up to Assistant Registrar, filed a writ petition challenging the promotion of Prashant P. Gade to the same post, contending that Gade lacked the required educational qualifications, including a graduate degree and a certificate from the Central Provinces Typing Board, as per the High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s 1996 Recruitment Rules.

Gade, who had joined as an LDC in 1986 and was appointed as Stenographer in 1988 after clearing shorthand and typing tests at the Industrial Training Institute (ITI), Gondia, had risen through the ranks to Deputy Registrar by 2019. Despite rejection of Ahmad’s representation by both the Registrar General and the Chief Justice in 2017, Ahmad filed a writ petition in November 2018, shortly after being promoted himself.

The High Court, accepting Ahmad’s claims, ordered the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to reconsider Ahmad’s promotion from August 2016, and directed Gade’s reversion, holding that he did not meet the qualifications for even his initial appointment.

The Court framed the central issue as follows: “Whether a Stenographer duly appointed after approval of the Chief Justice of the High Court, possessing the required educational qualifications and necessary shorthand training from a government institute, can be reverted after more than 35 years on the finding that he did not possess the requisite qualifications?”

Answering this in the negative, the Court criticized the High Court’s failure to consider the long tenure, performance, and lack of any allegation of fraud against Gade.

The Court observed: “Throwing an employee with such a wide experience would not only be unfair and unreasonable but would be harsh and unjust.”

It further noted that Gade had completed a one-year shorthand course at ITI Gondia in 1985, and his appointment as Stenographer in 1988 was based on official selection through shorthand and typing tests, duly approved by the Chief Justice. The Court held:

“Even if there were any lacunae on the skill qualification, the same stood exempted or waived by the approval of the Chief Justice.”

The judgment also referred to Rule 6 of the 1937 Rules, which empowers the Chief Justice to waive qualification requirements under Rule 4.

Experience Trumps Procedural Irregularity: Reliance on Buddhi Nath Chaudhary

Citing the precedent in Buddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi Kumar, the Court noted:

“Now that they have worked in such posts for a long time, necessarily they would have acquired the requisite experience. Lack of experience, if any, at the time of recruitment is made good now.”

The Court emphasized that continuity of service and absence of misconduct warranted protection under law:

“There is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud or concealment against the appellant at the time of appointment or at any later stage.”

In doing so, the Court warned against rigid formalism that disrupts settled service careers:

“Appointments made long back pursuant to a selection need not be disturbed.”

While acknowledging that Mehfooz Ahmad was unjustifiably superseded and deserved to be promoted from August 2016, the Supreme Court refused to endorse Gade’s reversion, calling it "unsustainable."

The Court ruled: “We partly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court to the extent it directs that reversion of the appellant to the post below the Stenographer.”

At the same time, it maintained the High Court’s direction that:

“The promotion to respondent no.1 shall be extended with effect from 11/14.08.2016 and his seniority shall be above the appellant.”

The Court did not impose any costs and dismissed pending applications, concluding the matter with judicial finality.

The Supreme Court’s nuanced decision in Prashant P. Gade v. Mehfooz Ahmad protects both merit and procedural integrity—upholding the right of a qualified candidate to retrospective promotion, while defending the long-standing and unblemished service of another from retrospective invalidation. The judgment reaffirms the principle that procedural irregularities at the threshold cannot be weaponized decades later, absent any fraud, to overturn careers built through consistent performance and institutional approval.

Date of Decision: July 16, 2025