MP High Court: Assistant Professor Not Entitled To Confirmation Or Increments Before Acquiring Ph.D.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has dismissed a writ appeal filed by Dr. Gulab Singh Jatav, holding that an Assistant Professor appointed under a special recruitment drive cannot claim confirmation, increments or seniority before acquiring the mandatory NET/SLET/Ph.D. qualification prescribed in his appointment terms.

A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anil Verma affirmed the order of the Single Judge, observing that conditional appointments carry conditional benefits, and an employee cannot claim a “premium for his own failure” in not acquiring the requisite qualification within the stipulated time.

The case arose out of a special drive initiated by the Higher Education Department in 2003 to fill backlog posts of Assistant Professors. The advertisement required candidates to possess NET, SLET or Ph.D. qualifications. A corrigendum, however, granted a one-time relaxation, allowing appointment subject to acquiring the qualification within two years, failing which termination would follow.

Dr. Jatav was appointed in June 2004 and joined service in July 2004. His appointment order was later amended to incorporate the condition requiring acquisition of NET/SLET/Ph.D. within two years. Though the time period was extended on multiple occasions by the State, he ultimately obtained his Ph.D. only in July 2017. Thereafter, he was confirmed in service with effect from April 28, 2017.

Challenging the confirmation date, the appellant contended that since he had completed two years of probation in 2006, he ought to have been confirmed from that date and granted consequential increments and seniority benefits. He argued that acquisition of Ph.D. was not a condition precedent for confirmation and that the stipulation was incorporated later in his appointment order.

Appearing for the appellant, Shri L.C. Patne and Shri Prateek Kulshreshtha argued that denial of increments and delayed confirmation had caused serious prejudice, particularly in matters of pay fixation and seniority. They relied on the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, and judicial precedents to submit that increments ordinarily accrue upon completion of probation.

Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Shri Vivek Khedkar, assisted by Government Advocate Shri Sohit Mishra, submitted that the appointment was expressly conditional and contingent upon acquiring the requisite qualification. Failure to do so within time could have led to removal. Therefore, confirmation could only follow fulfilment of the condition.

The bench agreed with the State. It noted that the condition regarding qualification was embedded in the advertisement itself and later incorporated in the appointment order. The appellant had accepted both. “Petitioner cannot be permitted to receive premium for his own failure,” the court observed, pointing out that he took 13 years to acquire the qualification despite repeated extensions.

Relying extensively on the Full bench decision in Manoj Kumar Purohit v. State of M.P., the court reiterated that where an appointment is conditional upon passing a prescribed test or acquiring a qualification, increments and substantive benefits flow only after fulfilment of that condition. It further clarified that even under Fundamental Rule 24, increments are not automatic and may be withheld where justified.

The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of probation rules, emphasizing that confirmation requires successful completion of probation and fulfilment of prescribed conditions. Mere lapse of time does not result in automatic confirmation.

Addressing the appellant’s argument on parity with similarly placed employees, the Court rejected claims of “negative discrimination.” It directed the State to ensure that no Assistant Professor receives benefits prior to acquiring mandatory qualifications, thereby maintaining uniformity in service conditions.

In its concluding analysis, the Court found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s reasoning and dismissed the appeal as “sans merits,” directing that a copy of the order be sent to the Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Higher Education, for compliance.

Case Title: Dr. Gulab Singh Jatav v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Date of Judgment: February 18, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anil Verma