Chattisgarh High Court
Lokesh Ahirwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 April, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 206 of 2022
1. Lokesh Ahirwar, S/o Shri Anup Chaturvedani, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o F-2, Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Ku. Ritu Bharti, D/o Krishna Bharti, Aged About 25 Years, R/o H.
No. 53, Bhatagaon (Kodadi), District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara
(C.G.)
3. Ankita Chauhan, D/o Satyendra Singh Chauhan, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Ganga Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department of School
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal
Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
2. The Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, H.Q.- Indrawati
Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
3. The Divisional Joint Director, Education Division, Raipur (C.G.)
4. The District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar (C.G.)
5. The District Education Officer, Dhamtari (C.G.)
6. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvidyalaya, Through Its Registrar, Krishak
Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate.
For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
27.04.2022
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the
appellants. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned
counsel, appearing for respondent No. 6.
2. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 15.03.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 1750 of 2022,
whereby, the writ petition of the appellants was rejected.
3. The writ petitioners were appointed on 17.08.2021 to the post of
Agriculture Teachers. At the time of appointment, the petitioners were
pursuing Ph.D. courses and as a result of obtaining appointment, they
could not pursue the Ph.D. course. A joint application dated 25.11.2021
was filed by the petitioners to allow them to pursue Ph.D. course and to
grant leave without pay. The said representation was followed by other
representations on the subject. As there was no response from the
authorities, the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petition
numbered as Writ Petition (S) No. 992 of 2022, which was disposed of on
14.02.2022, providing that the representation of the petitioners would be
considered within a period of 15 days.
4. Thereafter, by an order dated 07.03.2022, the representation of the
petitioners was rejected. While rejecting the representation, reference
was made to Chapter-VI of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules,
2010 (for short, 'Rules of 2010'). The learned Single Judge at paragraphs
7 and 8 observed as follows:
"7. It is relevant at this juncture to take note of the fact
that as regards grant of leave is concerned, the same has
been dealt with under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services
(Leave) Rules, 2010. Rule 42 i.e. Chapter-VI under the
said Rules deals with Study Leave and Rule 42 also lays
down the conditions for grant of Study Leave. Sub-Rule (5)
of Rule 42 creates a specific bar so far as Study Leave
being granted to the probationers and also to those
employees who have not completed 5 years of continuous
service including the period of probation. For ready
reference Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 42 is being reproduced
hereinunder:
"(5) Study leave may be granted to a regular
Government servant -
(i) who has satisfactorily completed the period of
probation and has rendered not less than five
years' continuous service including the period of
probation and service in ad-hoc capacity under the
Government;
(ii) who is not due to reach the age of
superannuation from the Government service
within three years from the date on which he is
expected to return to duty after the expiry of leave;
(iii) who executes a bond a laid down in rule 49
undertaking to serve the Government for a period
of three years after the expiry of leave."
8. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioners were
made on 17.08.2021. As such the petitioners have not
even completed one year of service. The appointment of
the petitioners is on probation for a period of 3 years. In
terms of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 42 the petitioners do not
have either 5 years of continuous service or a successful
completion of the probation period and on both the
circumstances the respondents would find it difficult in
granting study leave to the petitioners."
5. Mr. Kesharwani submits that there are number of instances when
the Government granted study leave even though the conditions
enumerated under Rule 42(5) of the Rules of 2010 had not been fulfilled
and therefore, the present petitioners are treated discriminatorily.
6. The learned Single Judge, while dealing with the above contention,
had held that grant of study leave to some employees, who were under
probation, cannot be a ground for claiming negative parity in the teeth of
Rule 42 (5) of the Rules of 2010.
7. In the case of Basawaraj & Another v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
observed that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative
equality but has only a positive aspect and thus, if some other similarly
situated persons had been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by
mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get
the same relief as well. Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to
perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions
made in other cases. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot
be perpetuated. Equality cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore,
cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner.
8. In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere with
the order of the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, the writ appeal is
dismissed.
9. At this juncture, Mr. Kesharwani submits that the petitioners would
file application for grant of any other leave that may be available to them.
We make no observation on this submission.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
