Allahabad High Court
Mahendra vs State Of U.P.& Another on 4 December, 2013
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 66250 of 2013
Petitioner :- Mahendra
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar,Neeraj Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. 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 regularization of petitioner from 4.9.1998 instead of 19.11.2009. Under the Rules, it is provided that the regularization shall take effect from the date of order of regularization. However, petitioner is seeking regularization with retrospective effect. No provision has been shown under which the backdated regularization 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 & another Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & another (2010) 2 SCC 422, 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 Ors. (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. In State of Karnataka & others Vs. Gadilingappa & others (2010) 2 SCC 728, the Court reiterated that it is well settled principal 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 regularization 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 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, AIR 2000 SC 2306; Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Co. and another, AIR 2003 SC 3983; Lalit Mohan Pandey Vs. Pooran Singh and others, AIR 2004 SC 2303; M/s Anand Buttons Ltd. etc. Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2005 SC 5565; and Kastha Niwarak G. S. S. Maryadit, Indore Vs. President, Indore Development Authority, AIR 2006 SC 1142 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.
Dt. 04.12.2013
PS
