( 1 ) THE petitioner-employees of the Corporation are aggrieved of an order dated 10th of February, 1993, whereby the State Government have declined to approve the sale of residential quarters presently in their occupation. The challenge is based on a two fold submission, one relating to what is alleged to be a discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioners and the other suggesting non-application of the mind by the Government while declining to approve the proposal submitted by the Corporation. Before I deal with the submissions on their merit, it is necessary to state a few facts relevant to the controversy. ( 2 ) BY a communication dated 26th of September, 1981, the Government asked the respondent-Corporation to send a suitable resolution for the sale of 20 quarters owned by the corporation situate at the Magadi Road in favour of the employees of the Corporation in occupation of the same. A resolution was passed by the Corporation, but only 11 years later in 1992, which was forwarded to the Government for the grant of sanction in terms of Section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. The Government did not however approve the proposed sale and by its order dated 10th of February, 1993 directed the Corporation to get the quarters occupied by the employees, who had retired in the meantime vacated. Aggrieved, the employees have questioned the validity of the said order in the present writ petitions. ( 3 ) APPEARING for the petitioners, Smt. Geeta Menon argued that the Government had approved a similar resolution passed in respect of Corporation quarters situated in the Ulsoor area in August 1992. She relied upon an order dated 13th of August, 1992 granting approval for sale of a quarter in Ulsoor area in favour of one L. Nagarajaiah. It was contended that approval for sale of quarters in some cases while refusing the same in others amounted to discriminatory treatment offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) MR. Haranahalli, Counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand, contended that keeping in view the acute shortage of residential quarters for Corporation employees, the government had issued a Circular on 5th of September, 1990 stating that all proposals for sale of such quarters should be rejected at the Corporation level itself. ( 4 ) MR. Haranahalli, Counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand, contended that keeping in view the acute shortage of residential quarters for Corporation employees, the government had issued a Circular on 5th of September, 1990 stating that all proposals for sale of such quarters should be rejected at the Corporation level itself. Based on the said Circular the corporation had also by another Circular dated 11th of May, 1998, directed that no proposal for sale of residential quarter be put up to the Commissioner. He urged that the Government was entitled to alter its policy keeping in view the subsequent developments especially the ever increasing demand for residential accommodation in Bangalore. No employee was, according to mr. Haranahalli entitled to claim a vested right to purchase any such property on the basis of a policy that had been reversed. ( 5 ) THE instructions issued by the Government by its letter dated 26th of September, 1981 did not evoke any response from the Corporation for over a decade. A resolution was passed only in april 1992, by which time the Government had decided not to permit any such sales as is evident from the Circular issued by it in 1990. Whether or not quarters available with the Corporation should be sold is a matter of policy to be determined on the basis of relevant considerations including the requirement for such quarters, the alternative accommodation, if any available for allotment to the employees and the cost involved in maintaining such accommodation etc. If on the basis of their perception the Corporation or the Government evolve a policy, which permits sale of such quarters to its employees, the same would not prevent them from altering the same on a review based on experience or on account of subsequent developments. Such a review having been undertaken resulting in a decision not to permit sales no employee could claim the right to purchase what the Corporation was not prepared to sell. It is not a case where a scheme or policy is in force, which permits sale of quarters to any one who qualifies as per the norms prescribed, but the benefit of sale is given to some while refusing the same to others. It is not a case where a scheme or policy is in force, which permits sale of quarters to any one who qualifies as per the norms prescribed, but the benefit of sale is given to some while refusing the same to others. In any such situation, the authority administering the scheme could be directed to extend the benefit of the scheme to all those who qualified for the same. It is on the contrary a case where a policy was earlier in force which has been altered upon review. As per the scheme now in force, both the corporation as also the Government are averse to selling the existing quarters to its existing or former employees. Such being the position, the question of any discriminatory treatment to the petitioners does not arise. ( 6 ) IT is true that a similar resolution in respect of another set of quarters at Ulsoor Road was passed by the Corporation and approved by the Government even after there was a change of policy. That is evident from an order dated 13th of August, 1992 in favour of Sri Nagarajaiah. Mr. Haranahalli was unable to explain how the Commissioner had proposed the sale of the quarter in favour of Sri Nagarajaiah in the teeth of the decision taken by the State Government nor was the Government Advocate in a position to explain as to why was an exception made in favour of Sri Nagarajaiah even when the Government decision not to sell did not admit of any exceptions. If the allegations made by the petitioner were to be believed, such transfers are granted on selective basis for considerations other than legal and with the sole object of conferring a benefit upon those chosen for the same. This may or may not be so but, what is evident is that the violation of the policy has not been satisfactorily explained, giving rise to a lurking suspicion that all is not well with the implementation of the policy. The question however is whether any such violation should by a judicial order be perpetuated. My answer is in the negative. I say so because the violation of a policy does not create a binding precedent or entitle another person to seek a similar treatment. Two wrongs do not make one right. The question however is whether any such violation should by a judicial order be perpetuated. My answer is in the negative. I say so because the violation of a policy does not create a binding precedent or entitle another person to seek a similar treatment. Two wrongs do not make one right. In faridabad CT Scan Centre v D. G. Health Services and Others , the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where the petitioner although not entitled to the benefit of exemption under a notification was claiming such a benefit on the strength of Article 14. It was contended that denial of benefit to the petitioner would offend the equality clause having regard to the fact that the respondents had extended the benefit of exemption to another unit situate similarly. A division Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Private limited v Union of India and Others, was relied upon in support of that submission. Repelling the contention and overruling the decision in Mediwell's case, supra, their Lordships held that article 14 had no application to cases where the orders passed earlier were wrong. Such orders could not, observed their Lordships, be perpetuated with the help of Article 14. The Court observed. "we fail to see how Article 14 can be attracted in cases where wrong orders are issued in favour of others. Wrong orders cannot be perpetuated with the help of Article 14 on the basis that such wrong orders were earlier passed in favour of some other persons and, therefore, there will be discrimination against others if correct orders are passed against them. In fact, in the case of union of India (Railway Board) and Others v J. V. Subhaiah and Others , the same learned Judge in his judgment has observed in para 21 that the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 does not apply when the order relied upon is unsustainable in law and is illegal. Such an order cannot form the basis for holding that other employees are discriminated against under Article 14. The benefit of the exemption notification, in the present case, cannot, therefore, be extended to the petitioner on the ground that such benefit has been wrongly extended to others. With respect, the decision in Mediwell Hospital does not lay down the correct law on this point". The benefit of the exemption notification, in the present case, cannot, therefore, be extended to the petitioner on the ground that such benefit has been wrongly extended to others. With respect, the decision in Mediwell Hospital does not lay down the correct law on this point". ( 7 ) THE position in the instant case in no different. Here also what is pointed out is an order made contrary to the policy decision taken by the respondents. In the words of their Lordships, orders passed contrary to the scheme were wrong, so that any direction for repetition of such orders would amount to perpetuating the same. That indeed is not the purpose, which Article 14 is meant to serve. The first limb of the petitioner's case must therefore be rejected. ( 8 ) EQUALLY untenable is the alternative submission that the Government order has been issued without application of mind. As noticed earlier, the Government have evolved a policy not to approve transfer of residential quarters owned by the Corporation keeping in view the ever increasing demand for the same. Any order, refusing to approve the proposed sale issued consistently with that policy cannot be dubbed as mechanical or vitiated by non-application of mind. The resolution forwarded to the Government having been passed belatedly, there was no way the Government could approve the same without reversing its decision not to permit such sales. The grant or refusal of permission to sell quarters does not have any judicial or quasi-judicial flavour. It is a decision, which is administrative in nature and cannot therefore be set at naught only on the ground that the formal expression of the decision does not state the reasons behind the same. ( 9 ) IN the result, these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs.