Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3052 (ALL)

Mahendra v. State of U. P. and another

2013-12-14

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2013
Sudhir Agarwal, J.— Petitioner has been regularized by means of order dated 19.11.2001 and has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No, 2 to consider the date of regularisation of petitioner from 4.9.1998 instead of 19.11.2009. Under the Rules, it is provided that the regularisation shall take effect from the date of order of regularisation. However, petitioner is seeking regularisation with retrospective effect. No provision has been shown under which the backdated regularisation can be claimed by petitioner. 2. It is said that some other persons have been allowed similar benefits, and, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the same. However, I find no force in the submission. 3. It is well-settled that two wrongs will not make one right. In Union of India and another v. Kartick Chandra Mondal and another, (2010) 2 SCC 422 : 2010 (4) AWC 4206 (SC). 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 v. Upendra Narayan Singh and others, (2009) 5 SCC 65 , the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinbelow : "67. 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..." 4. 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..." 4. In State of Karnataka and others v. Gadilingappa and others, (2010) 2 SCC 728 : 2010 (6) AWC 6044 (SC), 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. 5.. Learned counsel for petitioner failed to show that regularisation of others from backdate was consistent with the scheme of statutory provisions and, therefore, was made validly. 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 authorised acts. Two wrongs will not make one right. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another, AIR 2000 SC 2306 : 2006 (3) AWC 2.29 (SC) (NOC) ; Union of India and another v. International Trading Co. and another, AIR 2003 SC 3983 ; Lalit Mohan Pandey v. Pooran Singh and others, AIR 2004 SC 2303 : 2004 (3) AWC 1995 (SC) ; M/s. Anand Buttons Ltd. etc. v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2005 SC 5565 : 2005 (1) AWC 146 (SC) and Kostha Niwarak G. S. S. Maryadit, Indore v. President, Indore Development Authority, AIR 2006 SC 1142 : 2006 (2) AWC 1139 (SC), has held that Article 14 has no application in such cases. 6. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. 7. Dismissed