Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 181 (MEG)

Heron Roy Manner v. State of Meghalaya

2022-07-11

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. These three writ petitions being filed on the same cause of action and on similar facts, will be disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners in these petitions are stated to have been appointed by the competent authority in their respective Sub-Divisions sometime in the year 1995 to 1997, after being successful in the selection process conducted by the state respondents and on their appointment, the petitioners were posted in different schools run and managed by Religious Institutions and Minority Communities. Prior to their appointments, the State of Meghalaya for the purpose of taking over the primary schools run by the District Councils in the state, had enacted an Act known as the Meghalaya (Taking Over of the DCLP Schools) Act, 1993 which came into force on 02-06-1994. For implementation of this Act, the State Government had constituted a committee to examine the list of District Council Lower Primary (DCLP) Schools in the state, deemed to have been taken over and vest with the State Government and while constituting the said committee, 24-09-1982 was fixed as a cut-off date for calculating the length of service of the LP School Teachers as Government Teachers in the Jowai Autonomous District. The committee by its report recommended that the LP School Teachers be placed into two categories, those appointed by the District Council as well as the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Administrator/Assistant Administrator and posted in DCLP Schools were to be treated as Government Teachers, whereas those appointed by the same authority but posted in Religious/Minority Institutions shall be treated as Non-Government LP School Teachers. 3. In WP(C). No. 203 of 2015, there are altogether 11 petitioners and they are stated to have been appointed by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Amlarem Sub-Division sometime in the year 1995 after being duly selected. In WP(C). No. 204 of 2015, there are 38 petitioners, all are matriculates and some also possess the added qualification of having passed the District Elementary Education Eligibility Test and some have passed the Basic Teachers Training/Junior Basic Training. They are stated to have been appointed by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jowai Sadar Sub-Division in the years 1995 to 1997 after being duly selected. The petitioners in WP(C). They are stated to have been appointed by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jowai Sadar Sub-Division in the years 1995 to 1997 after being duly selected. The petitioners in WP(C). No. 205 of 2015 are 31 in number and possess similar qualifications such as the petitioners in the other writ petitions. These petitioners have been stated to be appointed by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Khliehriat Sub-Division sometime in the year 1995, after being duly selected. It is to be noted that after the selection, the petitioners in all these three writ petitions were posted in different schools run and managed by Religious Institutions and Minority Communities. 4. Before coming to the questions that have been raised in the instant writ petitions, it is important to note that the issues in these petitions were before this Court in three writ petitions fronted by the same writ petitioners herein, which were numbered as WP(C). No. 301, 302 and 303 of 2013. This Court by order dated 03-07-2014, was pleased to dispose of the said writ petitions by allowing the writ petitioners therein, to prefer fresh representations mentioning all the relevant facts for consideration by the state respondents. Thereafter, under the Orders of the Governor by Notification dated 24-09-2014, a Committee was constituted to examine the grievances of the petitioners, which after hearing the petitioners and recording their statements and examination of relevant documents and records, submitted a report and findings dated 21-10-2014 to the respondent No.2, holding the petitioners ineligible to be given the status of Government L.P. School Teachers. 5. The state respondents on receipt of the detailed report, then vide order dated 04-05-2015, rejected the representations and while rejecting the prayers of the petitioners had also ascribed reasons for the same. The writ petitioners being dissatisfied with the said report and order, are therefore once again before this Court. 6. Mr. 5. The state respondents on receipt of the detailed report, then vide order dated 04-05-2015, rejected the representations and while rejecting the prayers of the petitioners had also ascribed reasons for the same. The writ petitioners being dissatisfied with the said report and order, are therefore once again before this Court. 6. Mr. S.M. Suna, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions submits that the petitioners after appointment, were deputed to serve in Private Institutions and in Government Aided Schools and after the enactment of the Meghalaya (Taking Over of the DCLP Schools) Act, 1993, by virtue of Section 3 of the Act, the government had proceeded to take over the management of all the existing DCLP Schools by fixing a cut-off date to determine the status of a teacher who was to be considered for absorption as a Government LP School Teacher. Learned counsel admits that all the petitioners were appointed after the cut-off date and after the implementation of the Act. He however submits that the petitioners are entitled to be treated as Government Teachers, inasmuch as, their appointment was made against sanctioned posts by the competent authority at that time, who was exercising such powers. In this regard, learned counsel referred to an observation made in the case of Ferisha Phalley vs. State of Meghalaya decided on 23-08-2002, which he submits the erstwhile jurisdictional High Court i.e., the Gauhati High Court, had held in para 19 of the judgment that, 'It will be illogical to infer that only because accidentally, someone got appointed as a teacher in the DCLP Schools, his/her services were protected and those, who by coincidence, got appointed in the Minority or Private Schools, their services were not protected. Any other interpretation will lead to an anomalous situation, where a person will be denied that right to continue as a teacher only because of coincidence or accidental factors.' 7. It is also submitted by learned counsel that other teachers who were appointed in a similar situation and in the same nature and by a common appointment order, have been considered and have been treated and approved as Government L.P.School Teachers and as such, therefore, the petitioners too are entitled to be recognised/treated and approved as Government L.P.School Teachers, irrespective of the fact whether they were serving in a DCLP School or in a Private or Minority School. The learned counsel has also referred to a list of the alleged similarly placed teachers, who by virtue of being posted in a Government L.P.School have been accorded Government L.P.School Teacher status. With regard to the observations of the Committee which had considered the representations, the learned counsel submits that as per the parameters laid down by the said Committee, the petitioners are covered by para 2 and 3 of the said parameters and should have been considered to be eligible to be treated as Government teachers. The learned counsel submits that the findings of the Committee as well as the final order dated 04-05-2015, cannot be termed to be a fair conclusion. 8. It is also contended that the state respondents, by an act of artificial distinction between the Government L.P.Schools and Non-Government L.P.Schools, have arbitrarily deprived the petitioners of their legitimate service benefits, simply because they were serving in Non-Government L.P.Schools. In concluding his arguments, learned counsel submits that the instant case calls for intervention by this Court, to direct the state respondents to pass appropriate orders according the status of Government L.P. School Teacher to the petitioners as well as all consequential service benefits. 9. Mr. R.Gurung, learned Addl. Senior GA in reply, submits that the writ petition is firstly barred by the principles of res judicata, inasmuch as, on the same set of facts and circumstances, under orders passed by this Court, the state respondents had constituted a Committee to examine the case of the petitioners and the said committee had rendered conclusive findings. He submits that after examination, the Committee, found the writ petitioners to be not eligible as they were appointed after 02-06-1994, the date on which the Meghalaya (Taking Over of DCLP Schools) Act, 1993 came into force, and were posted in Non-Government L.P.Schools and continued to serve therein till date. Learned counsel submits that a plain reading of the Act of 1993, shows that it was enacted to take over only those Lower Primary Schools which were under the management of the District Council and it is not an Act to take over any and every category of Schools. Learned counsel submits that a plain reading of the Act of 1993, shows that it was enacted to take over only those Lower Primary Schools which were under the management of the District Council and it is not an Act to take over any and every category of Schools. Section 3 of the Act, he submits, clearly states that the provisions of Sub-Section 2 (a) and (b) shall also apply to a DCLP School Teacher who is deputed or transferred by the State Government to serve in a School not being a DCLP School. The petitioners, he contends, being appointed after 02-06-1994 and posted in Non-Government L.P.Schools and who continue to serve in such Schools are not eligible to be treated as Government Teachers as they do not come within the meaning of Sub-Section 3 (3) of the Act. 10. With regard to the parameters for examining the appointment of those teachers the learned counsel has placed the state's affidavit wherein the same has been categorized as follows: a) Teachers appointed by District Councils and serving in Non-Government Schools shall be treated as Government School Teachers on deputation to Non-Government Schools and the post ceases to be a government post on retirement of a teacher. b) In cases such as (a) above, the vacancy arising is to be filled by a Managing Committee and in cases where the Administrator or Deputy Inspector of Schools has issued appointment orders against such vacancies, the teacher thus appointed is not treated as a Government Teacher. c) Teachers appointed by Administrator or Deputy Inspector of Schools in Government Schools but transferred to Non-Government Schools along with the post shall be treated as Government School Teachers and their services shall be treated as a deputation and on retirement, the vacancy created remains a government post. d) Teachers appointed by Administrator or Deputy Inspector of Schools in Government Schools but transferred to a vacant post in a Non-Government School, the concerned teacher is a Government Teacher, but the post remains a non-Government post. 11. d) Teachers appointed by Administrator or Deputy Inspector of Schools in Government Schools but transferred to a vacant post in a Non-Government School, the concerned teacher is a Government Teacher, but the post remains a non-Government post. 11. It is submitted that the appointments of the writ petitioners are not on the same footing with the appointments of the other teachers who are already considered and recognised by the state respondents as Government Teachers as they were appointed after the Act 1993 came into force, in those Schools which had not been taken over by the Government and as such, were outside the ambit of the Act of 1993. Learned counsel reiterates and clarifies that the Act of 1993 which came into force on 02-06-1994, is meant only for those teachers who were serving in Schools run by District Councils (DCLP Schools) and for those DCLP School Teachers who were deputed or transferred by the State Government to serve in a school not being a DCLP School. It is also contended that the judgment rendered in the case of Smti. Ferisha Phalley vs. State of Meghalaya is not applicable, inasmuch as, the said Ferisha Phalley was appointed along with other 39 teachers by order dated 21-07-1982 and the Act of 1993 came into force on 02-06-1994, when she was already in service and further, she was appointed by the District Council authority and was posted in a Non-DCLP School. The petitioners on the other hand, he submits, were appointed after the Act came to force and as such, there is no similarity with the cited case as the teachers appointed after 02-06-1994, at Non-DCLP Schools are not considered as Government Teachers. 12. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that 60 teachers under Williamnagar Sub-Division were given the status as Government Teachers, learned counsel submits that on examination by the Committee constituted on 24-09-2014, it has been found that these 60 teachers were not eligible to be treated as Government Teachers as they were appointed after 02-06-1994. This he admits is an error as there was no basis for the first Committee constituted on 16-03-2003 by the Government to approve the case of the said 60 teachers. This error, he submits, committed by the earlier Committee cannot be replicated and the petitioners cannot claim negative equality. This he admits is an error as there was no basis for the first Committee constituted on 16-03-2003 by the Government to approve the case of the said 60 teachers. This error, he submits, committed by the earlier Committee cannot be replicated and the petitioners cannot claim negative equality. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following 2 decisions namely; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur vs. Daulat Mal Jain & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 35 and Union of India & Anr. vs. International Trading Co. & Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 437 , to impress upon the point of negative equality and that Article 14 does not contemplate repetition of a wrong action. 13. On other subsequent contentions raised by the petitioners by way of additional affidavits, it is submitted that the teachers referred to by the petitioners therein were all appointed prior to 02-06-1994, whereas other teachers such as the petitioners who were appointed after 02-06-1994, are considered as Non-Government Teachers. Learned counsel submits that there being no justifiable ground made out for any interference, these writ petitions deserve no consideration and are liable to be rejected. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the materials on record, this Court notes that the issues raised herein have, as observed earlier, been gone into by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, subjected to scrutiny by the Committee and final orders passed thereon, and as such, the scope of re-examination of the issues therefore is limited. The writ petitioners by this second round of litigation, have re-agitated the points raised earlier which has been gone into and decided by the Committee constituted on the orders of this Court. What remains is limited only to examine as to whether all relevant aspects were considered, while rejecting the case of the petitioners. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to the relevant provisions of the Meghalaya (Taking Over of the DCLP Schools) Act, 1993, more particularly, Sections 2, 3 and 4 which are reproduced herein below: 'MEGHALAYA ACT 6 OF 1994 THE MEGHALAYA TAKING OVER OF DISTRICT COUNCIL LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOLS, ACT, 1993. (as passed by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly) (Received the Assent of the Governor on the 2nd June, 1994. (as passed by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly) (Received the Assent of the Governor on the 2nd June, 1994. Published in the Gazette of Meghalaya, Extra-ordinary issue dated 2nd June, 1994) AN ACT to provide for the taking over of Primary Schools of the District Councils in Meghalaya by the State Government and for matters connected therewith. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Meghalaya in the forty fourth year of the Republic of India as follows:- Definitions. 2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant to the context- (a) 'Act' means the Meghalaya (Taking over of District Council Lower Primary Schools) Act 1993; (b) 'appointed day' means the date appointed by the State Government under sub-section (2) of section 1; (c) 'autonomous district' means the autonomous district, as the case may be, of Khasi Hills, Garo Hills or Jaintia Hills; (d) 'cut-off-date' means the cut-off date referred to in section 4; (e) 'DCLP School' means any Lower Primary School including a Junior Basic School managed by the District Council; (f) 'District Council' means a District Council in the State of Meghalaya constituted under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution; (g) 'Section' means a section of the Act; (h) 'State Government' means the Government of the State of Meghalaya; and (i) 'taking over' means the taking over of DCLP Schools by the State Government as referred to in section 3. Taking over of DCLP Schools 3. (1) On and from the appointed date all DCLP Schools in the autonomous districts shall stand taken over by and vest in the State Government. (2) On the taking over of the schools under sub-section (1) the liability on account of :- (a) salary and allowances, including any arrear thereof, of a teacher who immediately before the twentieth day of December, 1993 is a teacher of such school shall pass on the State Government; and (b) gratuity and pensionary benefits of a DCLP school teacher, including any arrear thereof, for any period commencing from the cut- off date shall be borne by the State Government. (3) The provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) shall also apply to DCLP school teacher who is deputed or transferred by the State Government to serve in a School not being a DCLP School. Cut-off date. 4. (3) The provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) shall also apply to DCLP school teacher who is deputed or transferred by the State Government to serve in a School not being a DCLP School. Cut-off date. 4. For calculating the length of service of a DLCP school teacher for the purpose of gratuity, pension, retirement benefits and for other purposes of this Act the State Government may by order fix a cut-off date which shall not be date later than the twentieth day of December, 1993 and different cut-off dates may be fixed for different autonomous districts.' 15. A perusal of the above referred provisions, clearly shows that the Act was enacted to provide for the taking over of Primary Schools of the District Councils in Meghalaya, by the State Government. Section 2 (d) speaks of a cut-off date which in relation with Section 4 is for the purpose of calculating the length of service of a DCLP School Teacher for the purpose of gratuity, pension and other retirement benefits. Section 3 (3) provides for the coverage to those DCLP L.P. School teachers who were deputed to serve in a School not being a DCLP School. The scheme of the Act therefore, was to secure the services of those teachers who were appointed by the respective Administrators or Deputy Inspector of Schools before the commencement of the Act and a cut-off date was prescribed for the different Autonomous Districts as per Section 4, for calculating the length of service. The Act nowhere envisages the coverage of teachers appointed after the commencement of the Act and posted in Non-Government Schools. 16. The Committee after hearing the writ petitioners, by its report had examined the cases of the petitioners and the parameters, findings and conclusion are reproduced herein below: Parameters: 1. All Primary School teachers appointed originally by the Executive Committees of the three District Councils and posted in DCLP Schools or transferred to Non Govt. LPS before the cut off date i.e. 2nd June 1994 are eligible to be treated as Govt. teachers. 2. Teachers appointed by the Administrator/D.I. of Schools after the cut off date i.e. 2nd June 1994 and posted in DCLP/Govt. L.P. Schools but later transferred to Non Govt. LPS along with the post shall be treated as Govt. teachers. The post remains a Non-Govt. post after the retirement of the concerned teacher. 3. teachers. 2. Teachers appointed by the Administrator/D.I. of Schools after the cut off date i.e. 2nd June 1994 and posted in DCLP/Govt. L.P. Schools but later transferred to Non Govt. LPS along with the post shall be treated as Govt. teachers. The post remains a Non-Govt. post after the retirement of the concerned teacher. 3. Teachers appointed by the Administrator/D.I. of Schools after the cut off date i.e. 2nd June 1994 posted in Non Govt. Schools and continue serving in Non Govt. Schools till date are not eligible to be treated as Govt. teachers. Findings of the Committee: The details and particulars of the all the teachers as per terms of reference of the Committee constituted by the Govt. have been adhered to and the following are the finding of the Committee Sub- Division- Wise. (a) Amlarem Sub Division 1. The detail statement of all the 11 (eleven) Petitioners was compiled along with the appointment order and enclosed at Annexure VI. 2. The statement of Shri Heron Roy Manner representative of WP(C) 301/2013 (annexed as Annexure VII). After examination of the statement and verification from the records available in the Office, it is found that his contention at Para 2 & 3 is unjustifiable as the teachers appointed vide order No. APA/E-2/94-95 dt. 25/1/1995, dt. 18/5/1995, dt 26/9/1995, dt. 11/3/1996 and dt. 28/11/1997 have not been considered earlier and at present also as they are not eligible to be treated as Govt. teachers as they were appointed by the D.I. of Schools after cut off date of 2nd June 1994 and posted in Non Govt. I.P.S till date. (b) Khliehriat Sub Division 1. The details of all the 29 Petitioners was compiled in the statement along with the appointment orders is enclosed as Annexure VIII. 2. The Statement of Shri Pyntngen Mukhim representative of the above Petitioners in WP(C) No. 302/2013 was recorded and enclosed at Annexure IX. In his statement at Para 2 he contested that out of 41 teachers appointed by the D.I. of Schools, Khliehriat vide Order No. A-01/PRY/K/94-95/3237-297 dtd 25/1/1995 some were considered as Govt. teachers and some were left out. 2. The Statement of Shri Pyntngen Mukhim representative of the above Petitioners in WP(C) No. 302/2013 was recorded and enclosed at Annexure IX. In his statement at Para 2 he contested that out of 41 teachers appointed by the D.I. of Schools, Khliehriat vide Order No. A-01/PRY/K/94-95/3237-297 dtd 25/1/1995 some were considered as Govt. teachers and some were left out. On scrutiny and verification from the records available in the Office, it is found that the contention is not true and justifiable as the list of teachers appeared in the above appointment order have never been considered by the previous committee as they were appointed after the cut off date and posted in Non-Govt. LPS till date. (c) Jowai Sub Division 1. There are 38 Petitioners under this Sub Division. The details statement of the particulars of the above petitioners was compiled along with the appointment order is enclosed at Annexure X. 2. The Statement of Smt. Airona Lyngdoh, representative of WP(C) No. 303 of 2013 was recorded and enclosed as Annexure XI. The petitioner Smt. Airona Lyngdoh contested at Para 2 that out of 81 teachers appointed in different appointment order, 38 teachers were left out by the Govt. for consideration as Govt. teachers by the previous Committee. As such they pray that their case also should be considered. At Para 3, the petitioners contested that 60 teachers under Williamnagar Sub Division were considered as Govt. teachers vide Order No. DEME/GA/ APPT/COM/11/2006/249 dtd 2/7/2007. As such their case also should be considered. The above order is enclosed as Annexure XII. On scrutiny of the records and documents available in the Office vis-à-vis the order issued by the Directorate dtd 2/7/2007 it is found that the contention appears to be true as the said 60 number of teachers were appointed by the D.I. of Schools Williamnagar and posted in Non Govt. LPS. Conclusion- On the above facts narrated, the Committee concludes its findings as below:- (1) It is found that most of the teachers/petitioners has already presented their case before the earlier Committees constituted by the Govt. but their case was not considered as they were not eligible to be treated as Govt. teachers as they were appointed by the concerned Administrator/D.I. of schools after the cut off date i.e 2nd June 1994. but their case was not considered as they were not eligible to be treated as Govt. teachers as they were appointed by the concerned Administrator/D.I. of schools after the cut off date i.e 2nd June 1994. In the instant case also it appears that all the teachers/ petitioners were appointed after the cut off date and posted in Lower Primary schools and continue to serve till date. (2) Regarding the contention of petitioners that 60 teachers under Williamnagar Sub-Division were considered as Govt. teachers which is a fact, the present Committee found that the above 60 teachers were not actually eligible to be treated as Govt. teachers as they were appointed after the cut-off date i.e 2nd June, 1994. It is not known on what basis the above teachers were considered to be treated as Govt. teachers by the first Committee constituted by the Govt. vide Notification No.EDN.223/2003/122 Dated 16th March, 2006 and approved by the Govt. This particular case is referred to the State Govt. for decision. (3) As per records available, it also appears that the post sanctioned in the above schools was issued after the cut off date which clearly indicates that new posts were sanctioned by the Govt. after the primary schools in the state were taken over by the Govt. The sanction order is enclosed as Annexure XIII. 17. The examination of the cases of the petitioners by the Committee and the parameters as set by the Committee therefore, cannot be faulted with, as it has been clearly spelt out therein, that teachers appointed by the Administrator/Deputy Inspector of Schools after the cut-off date and posted in Non-Government Schools and who continue serving in the Non-Government Schools till date, are not eligible to be treated as Government Teachers. 18. The impugned order dated 04-05-2015, which followed the Committee's findings at para 7 (b) and 8 (e) had noted as follows: '7(b) The report of the Committee on the above contentions of the above petitioners has been seen and the appointment orders examined. It is found that some teachers appointed vide the above mentioned appointment orders were treated as Government teachers while some others have not been treated as Government teachers. It is found that some teachers appointed vide the above mentioned appointment orders were treated as Government teachers while some others have not been treated as Government teachers. On further examination it is found that all those teachers who have been treated as Government teachers vide the above mentioned appointment orders were appointed in DCLP Schools which had been taken over by the Government under the Meghalaya (Taking over of the District Council Lower Primary Schools) Act, 1993 while those who were not treated as Government teachers were appointed in Schools which had not been taken over by the Government.' '8(e) The argument of the petitioners that they are 'similarly situated' with the sixty teachers of Williamnagar Sub-Division cannot be accepted because that earlier Committee had erred in its recommendations. The petitioners are not 'similarly situated' with the 50 other teachers recommended by the earlier Committee in whose case regularization has been correctly done as per Notification No. LL(B)/130/92/103 Dated 2/6/94. An error committed by an earlier Committee cannot be replicated. Hence, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioners.' 19. It is noted therefore, that the Committee had examined the entire matter from all angles after hearing the petitioners and as such, the findings and resultant final order dated 04-05-2015 do no call for any interference. 20. On the aspect of the teachers of Williamnagar Sub-Division being accorded Government teacher status, the final order has also noted that the criteria in respect of those teachers seems to have not been followed. As it is undisputed that the grant of Government L.P. School Teacher status was incorrectly done and not based on the prescribed criteria, I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that other teachers similarly situated cannot claim the same benefit on the ground of equality. In this context, on the concept of negative equality, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are relevant and the extracts of the paragraphs thereof, are quoted herein below. Extract of para 24 in Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur vs. Daular Mal Jain & Ors. (supra) reads as follows: '24. ......... Article 14 proceeds on the premise that a citizen has legal and valid right enforceable at law and persons having similar right and persons similarly circumstanced, cannot be denied of the benefit thereof. Extract of para 24 in Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur vs. Daular Mal Jain & Ors. (supra) reads as follows: '24. ......... Article 14 proceeds on the premise that a citizen has legal and valid right enforceable at law and persons having similar right and persons similarly circumstanced, cannot be denied of the benefit thereof. Such person cannot be discriminated to deny the same benefit. The rational relationship and legal back-up are the foundations to invoke the doctrine of equality in case of persons similarly situated. If some persons derived benefit by illegality and had escaped from the clutches of law, similar persons cannot plead, nor the court can countenance that benefit had from infraction of law and must be allowed to be retained. Can one illegality be compounded by permitting similar illegal or illegitimate or ultra vires acts? Answer is obviously no.' Paragraph 13 in Union of India & Anr. vs. International Trading Co. & Anr. (supra) reads as follows: '13. What remains now to be considered, is the effect of permission granted to the thirty two vessels. As highlighted by learned counsel for the appellants, even if it is accepted that there was any improper permission, that may render such permissions vulnerable so far as the thirty two vessels are concerned, but it cannot come to the aid of the respondents. It is not necessary to deal with that aspect because two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (in short 'the Constitution') cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality.' 21. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality.' 21. The judgment rendered in Ferisha Phalley will have no application in the instant case as there is no similarity to her appointment with that of the petitioners as they were all appointed after the commencement of the Act of 1993. 22. In view of the discussions above, no grounds have been made out to revisit the circumstances or the situation to warrant a reversal or interference in the findings of the Committee and there being no infirmity in the impugned order, these writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 23. No order as to costs.