ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.2019 (Annexure P/1), whereby his probation is declared complete and he is confirmed in service w.e.f. 29.4.2007, instead of 2 years after his appointment, i.e. 9.7.2006 as the period of probation was only for two years. He has prayed for a direction to the respondents to correct the date of confirmation of his service and to extend him consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner initially held the qualification of M.A. (English). As per the averments made in writ petition, in a special drive initiated by the Higher Education Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh for filling up the backlog posts of Assistant Professors, the applications were invited vide advertisement dated 10.07.2003 (Annexure P/2). Clause - 7 of the advertisement provided that the candidates are required to ensure that they possess necessary educational qualification. A corrigendum to the advertisement was thereafter issued on 02.10.2003 (Annexure P/3) prescribing the necessary educational qualification for appointment on the post. The qualification prescribed is as under:- ^^vfuok;Z 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk%& ¼d½ fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx }kjk le;≤ ij fofgr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk] LukrdksÙkj Lrj ij de ls de 55 Áfr'kr vad gksus pkfg;s] ijUrq vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa rFkk vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy;s vadksa dk Áfr'kr 50 Áfr'kr gksxkA ¼[k½ us'kuy ,fythfcfyVh VsLV ¼,u-bZ-Vh-½ ;k e/; Áns'k jkT; Lrjh; ik=rk ijh{kk ¼,l-,y-bZ-Vh½ ;k ih-,p-Mh- mikf/k /kkjd] tks vkosnd usV@LysV@ih-,p-Mh- dh ikf/kd /kkj.k ugha djrs gSa] mudk p;u bl 'krZ ds v/khu jgsxk fd ;s usV@LysV@ih-,p-Mh- dh mikf/k nks o"kZ dh vof/k esa ÁkIr dj ysaxsA ;fn bl vofèk esa mDr ;ksXr;k ÁkIr ugha djrs gSa rks mudh lsok,¡ lekIr dh tk,axhA ;s fo'ks"k NwV lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx }kjk dsoy ,d ckj ds fy, Ánku dh xbZ gSA 3- vkosnu i= ÁkIr djus dh vafre frfFk vc 14-10-2003 fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gSA mijksDr foKkiu ds lanHkZ esa ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa us iwoZ esa vkosnu dj fn;k gS] mUgsa iqu% vkosnu djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA 4- foKkiu dh vU; 'krsZ ;Fkkor jgsaxhA** 3. The petitioner successfully participated in the recruitment process and was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor vide order, dated 14.6.2004 (Annexure P/7). He was given posting at Government Degree College, Karera, District Shivpuri. The petitioner submitted his joining on 12.7.2004. The petitioner successfully participated in the recruitment process and was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor vide order, dated 14.6.2004 (Annexure P/7). He was given posting at Government Degree College, Karera, District Shivpuri. The petitioner submitted his joining on 12.7.2004. Subsequently, the order of appointment was amended vide order dated 27.12.2004 by incorporating following additional conditions:- ^^¼1½ yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk tkjh foKkiu ds vuqlkj mEehnokj dks nks o"kZ ds Hkhrj usV ;k LVsy ;k ih-,p-Mh- dh vgZrk vftZr djuk vko';d gSA ¼2½ lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx ds ifji= Øekad&9&8@2003@vk-Á-@,d] fnukad 13 tuojh] 2003 esa fufgr Áko/kku ds Ádk'k esa mDr mEehnokjksa ds fu;qfDr vkns'k pfj= lR;kiu ,oa LFkkbZ tkfr Áek.k i= ÁkIr gksus dh ÁR;k'kk esa tkjh fd;s x;s FksA pfj= lR;kiu dh fjiksVZ esa 'kkldh; lsok ds v;ksX; ik;s tkus] 6 ekg ds Hkhrj LFkkbZ tkfr Áek.k i= 'kklu dks ÁLrqr ugha djus rFkk mijksDr dafMdk&1 esa of.kZr ;ksX;rk nks o"kZ dh fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa vftZr ugha djus dh fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr mEehnokj dh lsok;sa rRdky ÁHkko ls fcuk lwpuk fn, lekIr dh tkosaxhA** 4. It is thus clear that the petitioner's appointment on the post of Assistant Professor was on probation for a period of two years and during this period of two years, he was required to obtain qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D. The Higher Education Department vide order dated 9.6.2006 extended the time to acquire qualification by two years. Again, by order dated 27.9.2017, (Annexure P/12), the said period was extended up to year 2017. 5. The petitioner was awarded Ph.D. vide notification dated 24.7.2017 (Annexure P/13). Accordingly vide order dated 28.1.2019 (Annexure P/1), he is confirmed in service w.e.f. 28.4.2017 i.e. a day after he acquired Ph.D. qualification. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that his appointment was on probation for a period of two years and, therefore, he ought to have been confirmed in service on completion of two years i.e. on 14.6.2006. He claims that acquisition of Ph.D. qualification was not the condition precedent for his confirmation in service. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's appointment was made on probation for a period of two years and, therefore, in absence of any provision for extension of probation, he ought to have been confirmed in service on 14.6.2006. It is his submission that petitioner's confirmation in service was not dependent upon his acquisition of qualification. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's appointment was made on probation for a period of two years and, therefore, in absence of any provision for extension of probation, he ought to have been confirmed in service on 14.6.2006. It is his submission that petitioner's confirmation in service was not dependent upon his acquisition of qualification. He also submitted that the condition for acquiring Ph.D. qualification was not incorporated in his order of appointment and, therefore, subsequently adding this condition vide order dated 27.12.2004, is illegal. It is his further submitted that once the petitioner is appointed against the post, he is entitled to draw increment. However, because of delay in confirmation of his service, the petitioner is deprived of benefit of increment for a long period of time. He prayed for modification of the date of his confirmation from 28.4.2017 to 14.6.2006. 8. On the other hand, respondents' counsel refuted the submissions made by petitioner's counsel and submitted that as per the terms of appointment, the petitioner was required to acquire qualification within a period of two years. Since, he failed to acquire the said qualification, he is not entitled to be confirmed in service. As per his submission, the petitioner's appointment itself was subject to his acquiring qualification and on his failure to do so, the appointment was liable to be cancelled. He further submitted that condition of acquiring qualification during the period of probation was inserted in his appointment order vide order dated 27.12.2004. He accepted the same without any objection. Even otherwise, this conditions was well incorporated in the advertisement and knowing well about it, the petitioner participated in the process. Therefore, the petitioner now cannot question the said condition. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner acquired his Ph.D. qualification on 27.4.2017, he has been confirmed in service immediately thereafter i.e. on 28.4.2017. It is his further submission that the petitioner would be entitled to get the regular increment from the date of confirmation. Thus, he supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. 9. Considered the arguments and perused the records. 10. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is profitable to refer to the provision of M.P. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch), Recruitment Rules, 1990 which governs the service conditions of the petitioner. Thus, he supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. 9. Considered the arguments and perused the records. 10. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is profitable to refer to the provision of M.P. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch), Recruitment Rules, 1990 which governs the service conditions of the petitioner. Schedule - III referable to Rule 8 prescribes necessary qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. Apart from other educational qualifications, possessing National Eligibility Test (NET) or State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) or Ph.D. degree is one of the essential qualification for appointment. Thus, in normal circumstances, the petitioner was required to hold the aforesaid qualification while submitting his candidature for appointment. However, it appears, it being a special drive to fill up backlog post, the condition was relaxed and the candidates were permitted to acquire qualification within two years of their appointment. However, the fact remains that holding NET/SLET/Ph.D. is one of the essential qualification for the post as prescribed under the rules. 11. Apart from rules, the advertisement dated 10.7.2003 as amended by corrigendum dated 27.9.2003, also specifically provided that the candidate is required to acquire qualification within two years of appointment. This time was though extended from time to time up to year 2017. However, nothing prevented the petitioner from acquiring qualification well in prescribed time of two years. Admittedly, the petitioner acquired Ph.D. qualification on 27.4.2017 and, therefore, the respondents confirmed him in service w.e.f. 28.4.2017. 12. The petitioner's claim for confirmation in service w.e.f. June' 2006 is based on the ground that the period of probation was only for two years and the condition to acquire qualification was independent of his confirmation in service. Pertinently, it is only on confirmation in service, the petitioner would be entitled to draw regular increments. 13. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Purohit v. State of M.P. & others, reported in 2016(1) MPLJ 449 was dealing with somewhat similar situation. In the case before the Full Bench, the issue involved was as to whether an employee is entitled to increments from the initial date of appointment or only from the date of passing of Hindi typing test as such condition was specified in his letter of appointment. In the case before the Full Bench, the issue involved was as to whether an employee is entitled to increments from the initial date of appointment or only from the date of passing of Hindi typing test as such condition was specified in his letter of appointment. The Full Bench splited the said issues as follows : "(a) When the Recruitment Rules expressly prescribe condition of passing Hindi Typing Test? (b) When the Recruitment Rules are silent but the letter of appointment contains such stipulation about passing of Hindi Typing Test? (c) When the Recruitment Rules provide that preference would be given to candidates who have passed Hindi Typing Test and the letter of appointment contains such stipulation? (d) When the appointment is made under the Policy of Compassionate Appointment or Regularization specifying passing of Hindi Typing Test as essential and also the letter of appointment provides for that condition for entitlement of increment." 14. In the case in hand, the qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D. is provided under the Rules, the present case would be covered under category (a). Answering this issue, the Full Bench held in para 11 as under : "11. After having noticed the modes of appointment, we may proceed to deal with the questions which arise for consideration ad seriatim. (a) Question No. (A)(a) : Indisputably, when the Recruitment Rules stipulate that the candidate in-order to be eligible for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, should have passed Hindi Typing Test, then the appointee would be entitled to the grant of benefit of increment only after passing the Hindi Typing Test. In such cases, the initial appointment itself will be a conditional appointment." 15. Thus, as has been held by the Full Bench, the petitioner would be entitled to draw regular increment from the date of acquiring qualification. In fact very appointment of the petitioner was a conditional one based upon his acquiring the qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D. 16. Rule 8 of M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 deals with probation while rule 12 thereof deals with fixation of seniority. Interpreting these provisions, the apex Court held in the case of M.P. Chandoria v. State of M.P. reported in (1996)11 SCC 173 , as under : "4. Rule 8 of M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 deals with probation while rule 12 thereof deals with fixation of seniority. Interpreting these provisions, the apex Court held in the case of M.P. Chandoria v. State of M.P. reported in (1996)11 SCC 173 , as under : "4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since he has been appointed w.e.f. the date of joining of duty, his seniority should be reckoned from the date of his starting discharging duty of the post, viz., 15.2.1967. As he has not been discharged from service due to his failure to pass the test, though he passed his test at a later date, he must be deemed to have been confirmed w.e.f. the date of his joining the duty. Therefore, the seniority is required to be conferred from that date. We find no force in the contention. Indisputably, the appellant is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short, ‘the Rules’). Clause 2(g) defines ‘service’ to mean a service of group of posts in connection with the affairs of the State other than the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service, organised as such by the Government. Rule 4 classifies the post with which we are not concerned. Rule 8 prescribes probation. Rule 8(1) envisages that a person appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment shall ordinarily be placed on probation for such period as may be prescribed. The appointing authority may, for sufficient reasons, extend the period of probation by a further period not exceeding one year. The probationer has to undergo such training and pass such departmental examination during the period of his probation as may be prescribed. Sub-rules (4) and (5) are not relevant and are omitted. Sub-rule (6) of rule 8 is relevant for the purpose of the case which envisages that on successful completion of probation and passing the prescribed departmental examination, if any, the probationer shall, if there is a permanent post available, be confirmed in the service or post to which he has been appointed. Otherwise a certificate shall be issued in his favour by the appointing authority to the effect that the probationer would have been confirmed but for the non-availability of the permanent post. As soon as a permanent post becomes available, he will be confirmed. Otherwise a certificate shall be issued in his favour by the appointing authority to the effect that the probationer would have been confirmed but for the non-availability of the permanent post. As soon as a permanent post becomes available, he will be confirmed. Under sub-rule (7), a probationer, who has neither been confirmed nor a certificate issued in his favour under sub-rule (6), nor is he discharged from service under sub-rule (4), he shall be deemed to have been appointed as a temporary government servant w.e.f. the date of expiry of probation and his conditions of service shall be governed by the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960. 5. Under rule 12, the seniority of the members of the service of a district branch or group of posts of that service, shall be determined in accordance with the principles laid down therein. Sub-clause (i) of clause (a) envisages that the seniority of a directly recruited government servant appointed on probation shall count during his probation from the date of his appointment; the proviso is not relevant. Sub-clause (ii) envisages that the same order of inter se seniority of direct recruits is maintained by confirmation of the normal period of probation. If, however, the period of probation of any direct recruit is extended, the appointing authority should determine the date from which the candidate should be assigned seniority. Until the probation period is completed and he is confirmed in the post, he does not become a member of the service on successful completion of the probation and passing of the prescribed tests or conditions precedent to declaration of completion of the probation period. So, mere passage of time of one year does not entitle a probationer to be a member of the service. He remains to be on temporary service. On completion of probation period, the appointing authority should confirm him in a pending post available or grant him a quasipermanent status. As soon as the post is available, he should be confirmed. In view of the admitted position that he did not pass the test, the appointing authority considered that his seniority would be counted w.e.f. the date of his passing the test. Rule 12(a) (ii) clearly empowers the appointing authority to assign, in these circumstances, the seniority in lower level than the one assigned by the Public Service Commission. In view of the admitted position that he did not pass the test, the appointing authority considered that his seniority would be counted w.e.f. the date of his passing the test. Rule 12(a) (ii) clearly empowers the appointing authority to assign, in these circumstances, the seniority in lower level than the one assigned by the Public Service Commission. We do not find any illegality committed by the authorities in giving seniority from the date of his passing the test." 17. In view of the aforesaid, since it was a mandatory condition of petitioner's appointment to acquire qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D., his appointment itself was liable to be cancelled/terminated on his failure to acquire qualification in time. He could save his appointment as the Govt. extended time to acquire qualification. However, that would not make the petitioner entitled for confirmation in service without acquiring qualification. Since, the petitioner would be entitled to draw regular increments on his confirmation in service, the petitioner cannot claim confirmation in service without acquiring qualification. Action of respondents in confirming the petitioner a day after his acquiring his qualification is therefore, found to be legal and valid, and same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 18. In view of the discussion made above, the relief claimed by the petitioner is therefore declined. The petition is dismissed. 19. The petitioner claims that the other similarly situated persons have been confirmed in service after two years of their appointment without their acquiring the aforesaid qualification. In Support of his submission, he refers to document filed as Annexure P/17. When the aforesaid documents are seen, it is not clear as to whether the confirmation of those employees is after two years of their appointment or from the date of acquiring qualification. However, if anyone is given benefit of confirmation contrary to what has been stated above, the respondent No.3 is required to examine this aspect and to take action accordingly. It is the obligation of respondent No.3 to ensure parity between the employees who are similarly situated. In other words, if the petitioner is granted confirmation from the date of his acquiring qualification, the others should also be treated alike. Therefore, respondent No.3 is directed to verify as to whether the persons named in paragraph 5.13 of the writ petition and/or anyone else, have been confirmed in service without their acquiring necessary qualification or not ? In other words, if the petitioner is granted confirmation from the date of his acquiring qualification, the others should also be treated alike. Therefore, respondent No.3 is directed to verify as to whether the persons named in paragraph 5.13 of the writ petition and/or anyone else, have been confirmed in service without their acquiring necessary qualification or not ? If he finds that they have been acquired without acquiring qualification, necessary steps are required to be taken as per this judgement. 20. Let a copy of this order be communicated by Principal Registrar of this Court to Commissioner, Higher Education, Bhopal for necessary compliance.