Jitendra Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri M.M. Sahai. learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel and perused the record. Admittedly, petitioners do not possess post graduate qualification as per the scheme of U.P. Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojna, amended by notification dated 23rd October, 2008. Under Chapter 8. para 8.1 of aforesaid scheme, minimum educational qualification for appointment is post graduate. Thereafter, since computer awareness have been found to be compulsory, therefore, certain decree have been mentioned so as to be given special preference but minimum educational qualification indisputably is post graduate qualification.

In the present case, none of the petitioners possess requisite minimum qualification, therefore, in my view, they have rightly been rejected by means of impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Annexure-14 to the writ petition, which shows that one Rakesh Ranjan, who possess only B.Tech. qualification and belong to OBC category, was appointed as Assistant Programme Officer.

Be that as it may, it cannot be doubted that if an illegal appointment has been made by authorities concerned, disobeying the provisions providing necessary minimum qualification, petitioners do not get a right to claim parity with such illegal act of the respondents. In Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal and Another, , the Court has gone to the extent that even if some other persons similarly placed have been absorbed, that cannot be a basis to grant a relief by the Court which is otherwise contrary to statute. In para 25 of judgment, the Court said:

Even assuming that the similarly placed persons were ordered to be absorbed, the same if done erroneously cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further appointment. An erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general welfare of the public or a considerable section. This has been the consistent approach of this Court. However, we intend to refer to a latest decision of this Court on this point in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and Others, , the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinbelow:

By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order....

In State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Gadilingappa and Others, , the Court reiterated that it is well-settled principle of law that even if a mistake is committed in an earlier case, the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated.

It is well-settled that if a wrong has been committed by the respondents in respect to some other persons, that will not provide a cause of action to claim parity on the ground of equal treatment since the equality in law under Article 14 is applicable for claiming parity in respect to legal and authorized acts. Two wrongs will not make one right. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another, ; Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. International Trading Co. and Another, ; Lalit Mohan Pandey Vs. Pooran Singh and Others, ; Anand Buttons Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore Vs. President, Indore Development Authority, . has held that Article 14 has no application in such cases.

In view of the aforesaid, 1 find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.