Rajeev Mani Tripathi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4135 Jhar

                               1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               L.P.A. No. 825 of 2019
                       with
               I.A. No. 11421 of 2019
                    ------

1.Rajeev Mani Tripathi, aged about 38 years, S/o-Shri Gopal Mani Tripathi, R/o - House No. 543, Ward No. 3, Nehru nagar, Chakiyava, PO - Deoria, PS-Deoria, District - Deoria (Uttar Pradesh), Pin Code-274001.

2.Vinay Kumar Pandey, aged about 41 years, S/o Shri Ram Pravesh Pandey, R/o - SA-13/46-S-18-1, Khajuhi Sarnath (Near Korean Temple), Varanasi, PO-Sarnath, PS-Sarnath, District-Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh), Pin Code-

221007.         ....           Petitioners/Appellants
                        Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Ranchi, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.

2.The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, situated at Kali Nagar Chai Bagan, PO- Namkum, PS- Namkum, District- Ranchi, Pin-834004.

3.Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, at Kali Nagar Chai Bagan, PO-Namkum, PS-Namkum, Dist- Ranchi.

4.Dist. Education Officer, Deoghar, PO & PS-Deoghar, Dist-Deoghar. .... Respondents/Respondents

5.Ravi Kumar Dubey, aged about 31 years, S/o- Shri Krishna Kumar Dubey, R/o -114/25, Shivkuti Teliyerganj, Allahabad, PO-Teliyerganj, PS-Shivkunti, District-Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh), Pin Code-211004.

6.Grijesh Kumar Srivastava, aged about 38 years, S/o Prabhaskar Nath Srivastava, R/o-Village + P.O.-Semour

Khanpur, P.S.-Hanswar, Block Baskhari, District - Ambedkar Nagar (Uttar Pradesh), Pin Code-224143

7.Anupam Shukla, aged about 34 years, S/o - Rama Kant Shukla, R/o-176/6Kha./Rasulabad, Teliyerganj, P.O.-Teliyerganj, P.S.-Shivkuti, District-Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh), Pin Code-211004.

...... Petitioner/Proforma Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Appellants : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate For the Resp.-JPSC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C to A.G.

-------

Oral Judgment Order No. 4: Dated 2nd November, 2021:

I.A. No. 11421 of 2019

This Interlocutory Application has been filed for

condoning the delay of 4 days, which has occurred in

preferring this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in this

application, we are of the view that the appellants were

prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal

within the period of limitation.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 11421 of 2019 is allowed and

delay of 4 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No. 825 of 2019

5. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of

the Letters Patent is preferred against the

order/judgment dated 20.09.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No.

6412 of 2018and other analogous cases whereby and

whereunder the writ petition was dismissed holding the

writ petitioners ineligible for the concerned post and

further it was held that the candidates who have

obtained degree exclusively in the subject "HISTORY" as

per the advertisement, are entitled for consideration for

appointment to the aforesaid posts, subject to fulfillment

of other criteria and requisite position in the merit list

and if there is no other legal impediments.

6. The brief facts of the lis which is required to be

enumerated read as hereunder:

The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, herein

after referred to as the 'JSSC', has come out with an

advertisement, being Advertisement No. 21/2016,

known as 'Combined Graduate Trained Teacher

Competitive Examination-2016', inviting on-line

applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the

posts of 'Trained Graduate Teacher' for different subjects,

including the subject 'History and Civics'.

Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioners-appellants

applied for the said posts and participated in the

selection process. However, on the date of verification of

the testimonials, it was found that the writ petitioner no.

1 has submitted certificate of Bachelor of Arts in Ancient

History, Psychology and Political Science whereas writ

petitioner no. 2 has submitted certificate of Bachelor of

Arts in Ancient History, Political Science and Economics.

and on being asked by the JSSC-the examining body,

the writ petitioners-appellants failed to submit the

certificate of 'degree' in Graduation with the subject

'History' in terms of the advertisement, as such show

cause notices were issued to some of the candidates

including appellant no. 1, who submitted reply to the

show cause which was found not satisfactory, as such

their candidature were not considered by the JSSC-

examining body for appointment on the post in question.

Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners-appellants

invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing writ

petition which was dismissed by the learned Single

Judge, against which, the present intra-court appeal has

been filed.

7. The case of the writ petitioners-appellants is that

they possess the educational qualification, as stipulated

in the advertisement as such they are eligible for

consideration of their appointment on the said post.

Further case of the writ petitioners-appellants is that

even though they were allowed to participate in the

selection process and obtained more marks than the last

selected candidate, who has been taken under

consideration zone for selection, but their candidature

have been rejected.

Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing

for the writ petitioners-appellants has submitted that

the learned Single Judge while rejecting the aforesaid

claim of the writ petitioners-appellants has committed

gross error in not considering the certificate issued by

the concerned Universities which conferred degree in

favour of the writ petitioners-appellants, in different

wings/streams of History, as such it cannot be

construed that the appellants are not having the

Graduate degree with the subject "History".

His further contention is that different Universities

of the different States are treating the degrees issued in

favour of the appellants valid even though not of

'History' rather some of the streams of the 'History', they

are being treated as holder of the degree in graduation

with the subject 'History'.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the State by

adopting the stand taken by the JSSC and in

furtherance of his argument has submitted that in

absence of any equivalence clause for educational

qualification, the candidature of the appellants cannot

be considered and if it will be considered it will amount

to giving relaxation to such candidate, which is not

permissible.

9. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the

parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions of

the parties, deem it fit and proper first to go through the

advertisements, basing upon which the entire selection

process was initiated.

The Department of Personnel, Administrative

Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand vide

letter no.11/K.Cha.Aa.-2-08/2016 ka-8280 (Anu) dated

23.09.2016 and letter No. 9441/ANU dated 04.11.2016

and letter No. 1089 dated 02.02.2017 forwarded the

requisition before the J.S.S.C. for starting selection

process for appointment to the post of Combined

Graduate Trained Teachers in different subjects in

different districts of the State. Pursuant thereto, the

JSSC invited on-line applications from the eligible

candidates by publishing Advertisement No. 21/2016,

known as 'Combined Graduate Trained Teachers

Competitive Exam-2016', in which, pay-scale, eligibility

criteria etc. have been mentioned.

It is evident from Clause 4 of the advertisement

No.21/2016, which mentions posts, pay-scale and

minimum educational qualifications, stipulating therein

the minimum educational qualification for the post of

Trained Graduate Teacher (History/Political Science)

Graduation with the subject History and Political

Science, with 45% marks in any of the subjects and

B.Ed or equivalent degree from the recognized

institution.

It is admitted case of the writ petitioners-

appellants that they do not possess the degree of

"History" in its entirety, as per the condition stipulated

in the advertisements. In the aforesaid backdrop, the

moot question that falls for consideration before the

learned Single Judge was as to whether 'History' is

equivalent to Ancient History, Medieval History and other

branches of History for the purposes of appointment to the

post of Trained Graduate Teachers?

The learned Single Judge, after considering the

fact that the degree of graduation if obtained in some of

the streams of History and not in entirety of History, it

cannot be said to be degree of 'History', as required in

the advertisement, has declined to grant positive

direction for consideration of their candidature for

appointment to the posts in question.

10. This Court, while considering the aforesaid

findings of the learned Single Judge, deems it fit and

proper to examine the following questions:

(i).Whether the candidates can be allowed to make departure from advertisement, so far educational qualification is concerned?

(ii).Can the Court of law make any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement?

(iii).Whether the writ petitioners-appellants without assailing the advertisement can claim parity of their degree with the subject History, as also the eligibility criteria, as has been fixed by the NCTE?

11. Since all these questions are co-related, hence it is

being taken up simultaneously.

It is settled position of law that if an

advertisement is issued on the requisition made by the

State authorities to the examining body, all the

conditions as stipulated in the advertisement is required

to be followed by the examining body.

It is also settled position of law that the Court of

law cannot grant any relaxation in the conditions

stipulated in the advertisement, as has been held by

Hon'ble Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs.

Saifudaullah Khan &Ors, AIR 2012 SC 1803. The

relevant paragraphs, i.e., paragraph nos.28 and 29 of

the said judgment, are quoted hereunder:

"28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

29. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of respondent No. 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."

It is further settled position of law, as has been

held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Bihar Public Service

Commission & Ors vs. Kamini and Ors., (2007) 5

SCC 519, wherein the issue fell for consideration before

the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble Patna High

Court pertaining to consideration of candidates, who

have participated in the process of selection in an

advertisement, which contains the minimum

qualification of B.Sc. Zoology with two years' diploma in

Fisheries Science from Central Institute of Fisheries

Education, Mumbai or a graduate degree in Fisheries

Science (BFSC) from a recognized university of M.Sc.

(Inland Fisheries Administration and Management) with

Zoology from the Central Institute of Fisheries

Education, Mumbai and when the candidature of the

candidate in the said case was not considered due to

lack of educational eligibility criteria, the matter went

before the Hon'ble Patna High Court wherein the learned

Single Judge dismissed the writ petition but the same

was reversed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent

Appeal, against which, the Bihar Public Service

Commission approached to the Hon'ble Apex Court

wherein their Lordship at paragraph 5 has been pleased

to hold that if the eligibility educational criteria was BSc,

Zoology, such person must have passed B.Sc. Zoology as

principal/main subject and not as a subsidiary or

optional subject.

It has further been held that the Court of law has

no jurisdiction to interfere and encroach upon the views

expressed by the expert committee. The expert

committee in the aforesaid case has opined that the

student would be called graduate in the subject if

he/she has Honours in that subject at graduate level,

meaning thereby it must be the principal subject. The

aforesaid opinion of the expert committee was accepted

by the Hon'ble Apex Court. For ready reference,

paragraph nos. 5, 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment are

quoted hereunder:

"5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court was wholly wrong in allowing the appeal and in setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and in ignoring the report submitted by the Expert Committee. He also submitted that even otherwise, the action of the Commission could not be said to be illegal or contrary to law. When the requisite educational qualification was BSc, Zoology, such person must have passed BSc with Zoology as principal/main subject and not as a subsidiary or optional subject.

Admittedly, the first respondent had passed BSc with Chemistry as principal subject and Zoology as optional/subsidiary subject. She, therefore, could not be held qualified and the action of the Commission was in consonance with law and was legal and proper. It was also submitted that after the representation was received from

the first respondent, the Commission constituted an Expert Committee for considering the grievance of the first respondent and even the Expert Committee opined that in its opinion i.e. in the opinion of the Committee, a student would be called graduate in the subject if he/she has Honours in that subject at the graduate level. If the subject is subsidiary (or side subject), he/she could not be called a graduate in that subject. It was because an Honours student at the graduate level studies eight papers in that subject whereas he/she studies only two papers in subsidiary subject. In accordance with the report, the action was taken which was proper. The counsel also submitted that the learned Single Judge was wholly right in upholding the contention of the Commission that the first respondent could not be said to be BSc Honours in Zoology and dismissed the petition. The Division Bench was in error in setting aside the said order which deserves interference.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The advertisement is explicitly clear and states that the candidate must be Honours in BSc, Zoology. It is not in dispute that the first respondent has obtained BSc degree with first class but her main subject was Chemistry of eight papers of 800 marks and in addition to Chemistry, she had two papers of Zoology and Botany. In pursuance of the advertisement, which was clear, the first respondent was not eligible for the appointment to the post of District Fisheries Officer. In spite of that, she applied for the said post. True it is that initially a letter was issued by the 14 Commission on 17-10-2002 calling upon her to appear before the Commission for interview. It was, however, a mistake on the part of the Commission. As soon as the appellant Commission realized that the first respondent was not having requisite qualifications for the post and was not eligible, her candidature was rejected. When a representation was made by the first respondent that cancellation of her candidature was not proper and that the decision should be reconsidered by the Commission, the

Commission thought it fit to look into her grievance and an Expert Committee was appointed. The Expert Committee considered the question and submitted a report on 24-11- 2002, inter alia, stating that in its "considered opinion", a student would be called a graduate in the subject if he/she has Honours in the subject at the graduate level, meaning thereby that it must be the principal subject. In our opinion, such a decision could not be said to be contrary to law.

8. Again, it is well settled that in the field of education, a court of law cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate possesses requisite qualifications, should better be left to educational institutions (vide University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao1). This is particularly so when it is supported by an Expert Committee. The Expert Committee considered the matter and observed that a person can be said to be Honours in the subject if at the graduate level, he/she studies such subject as the principal subject having eight papers and not a subsidiary, optional or side subject having two papers. Such a decision, in our judgment, cannot be termed arbitrary or otherwise objectionable. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was, therefore, right in dismissing the petition relying upon the report of the Committee and in upholding the objection of the Commission. The Division Bench was in error in ignoring the well-considered report of the Expert Committee and in setting aside the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, while allowing the appeal, observed that the "litmus test" was the admission granted to the first respondent by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. According to the Division Bench, if the first respondent did not possess Bachelor of Science degree with Zoology, the Institute would not have admitted her to the said course. The Division Bench observed that not only the first respondent was admitted to the said course, she had passed it with "flying colours". In our opinion, the Division Bench was not right in 15 applying "litmus test" of admission of the first respondent by the Central Institute of

Fisheries Education, Mumbai. The controversy before the Court was whether the first respondent was eligible for the post of District Fisheries Officer, Class II. The correct test, therefore, was not admission by the Mumbai Institution. If the requirement was of Honours in BSc with Zoology and if the first respondent had cleared BSc Honours with Chemistry, it could not be said that she was eligible to the post having requisite educational qualifications. By not treating her eligible, therefore, the Commission had not committed any illegality."

12. This Court has now proceeded to examine the

issues framed herein above. Admitted position herein is

that the on-line applications were invited from the

eligible candidates for filling up the posts of Trained

Graduate Teacher in different subjects, including

'History', which is the subject matter of the present

intra-court appeal.

It is also admitted fact that the appellants have

shown themselves having obtained graduate in 'History'

at the time of filling up on-line application form. On that

pretext, they were allowed to appear in the

assessment/performance test, as per the process of

selection, as stipulated in the advertisement, in which,

they were found to be successful and in consequence

thereof, they were directed to appear for verification of

testimonials, as per the conditions stipulated in the

advertisement. The examining body, at the time of

screening of the application form vis-a-vis testimonials

submitted by one or the other candidates has found

discrepancies in giving declaration with respect to

having graduate in the subject 'History', as per the

advertisement.

On such discrepancies, the examining body issued

show cause notices to some of the candidates including

appellant no. 1 in order to provide them opportunity of

hearing and opportunity to satisfy the examining body,

whereupon they appeared and tried to justify the

certificate obtained by them from different Universities

in different streams of 'History' like that of Ancient, but

failed to produce any degree in the subject 'History' in its

entirety, as per the advertisement, therefore, their

candidatures were rejected.

Examining body while rejecting the candidature of

the candidates has constituted an expert committee in

order to clarify the issue, comprising of Chairman,

Jharkhand Academic Council; Regional Director, KDS;

R.D.D.E, South Chhotanagpur; Secretary, Jharkhand

Academic Council; Deputy Director, Secondary

Education; Additional Secretary, Secondary Education;

DEO, Ranchi and Senior Advocate of the High Court,

who after making various correspondences with the

various Universities in the State of Jharkhand came to

the conclusion that Ancient History, Medieval and

Modern History are the branches of the subject History

and candidates having degree in any of the branches

only, not the subject History in its entirety, cannot be

made eligible for selection in terms of the advertisement.

It is also admitted position that no such clause

about 'equivalence' has been provided in the eligibility

criteria of the advertisements, so far degree of

graduation is concerned.

It is also admitted position that if the condition

has been stipulated in the advertisement, it cannot be

deviated in any way and if any deviation would be made

it amounts to relaxation, which is not permissible in law,

as per the law laid down in Bihar Public Service

Commission & Ors vs. Kamini Devi (supra), wherein it

has been held that if any degree is required in a

particular subject at Graduate Level, the degree must be

in the said subject by way of principal subject and not

as a subsidiary subject.

Relying upon the aforesaid proposition of law, we

are of the view that since in the advertisement

requirement has been made of having degree at graduate

level with History and Political Science, so far

appointment, as Trained Graduate Teacher is concerned,

which does mean that a candidate is held to be eligible

for consideration in the process of selection only if one

or the other candidate is possessing degree of History at

graduate level as a principal subject and not as

subsidiary subject.

In view of such proposition of law, as has been

held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Bihar Public Service

Commission & Ors. vs. Kamini Devi (supra), wherein

the Hon'ble Apex Court by accepting the opinion of the

expert committee has opined that candidate would be

called graduate in the subject if he/she has Honours in

the subject at graduate level, therefore, the finding of the

learned Single Judge by holding the eligibility of such

candidate to be considered for selection in the History

subject would be considered of such candidate, who are

having graduation in History subject in its entirety.

13. The issue has been raised by the learned senior

counsel for the writ petitioners-appellants that the

condition stipulated in the advertisement about making

no equivalence clause is not proper but the said

question cannot be allowed to be agitated at this stage

since admittedly herein the writ petitioners-appellants

have participated in the selection process by seeing the

conditions, stipulated in the advertisement, by naked

eyes and once found to be not eligible they cannot be

allowed to turn around and question the advertisement,

as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. G.

Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3

SCC 585. For ready reference, paragraph 15 of the said

judgment is quoted hereunder:

"15.We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the Constitution of the Committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this court in ManakLal's case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting:

It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point."

Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Omprakash

Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., (1986)

(supp) SCC 285, has held that if a candidate had

appeared in the examination without protest, he cannot

invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article

226 realizing that he would not succeed in the

examination.

Further reference in this regard be made to the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Marripati Nagaraja vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh and

Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 522 wherein it has been held that

if the appellant had appeared at the examination

without any demur, they did not question the validity of

fixing of the said date before the appropriate authority,

therefore, they were estopped and precluded from

questioning the selection process.

In the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in

Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service

Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors., (2011) 1 SCC

150 at paragraph 24, it has been held that "....All the

candidates knew the requirements of the selection

process and were fully aware that must possess the

basis knowledge of computer operation meaning thereby

Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office

Operation. Knowing the said criteria, the appellants also

appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the

expert of computer application and has taken a chance

and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage

and now they cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid

procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction."

14. This Court, in view of the settled position of law,

as has been decided in the judgments referred herein

above, is of the view that at this stage, the writ

petitioners-appellants cannot be allowed to question the

terms of the advertisement and further there is no

question to allow the writ petitioners-appellants to raise

this issue since this was not raised by the writ

petitioners-appellants before the learned Single Judge.

15. Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel for the writ

petitioners has argued at length by making reference of

the earlier advertisements wherein in similar

circumstances for the similar posts, even though the

candidates having no degree in History in its entirety

rather degree in different streams of the particular

subject, has been allowed to appear and finally they

have been selected, therefore, according to him taking a

different view pursuant to the present advertisements is

not justified.

16. This Court, after appreciation of argument

advanced by learned senior counsel for the writ

petitioners-appellants, is of the view that if any illegality

has been committed, the same cannot be allowed to be

continued.

It is not in dispute that Article 14 of the

Constitution of India always envisages the positive

equality and there is no concept of negative equality to

be followed, meaning thereby, if any decision has been

taken by the authority contrary to the rules, regulations

and conditions stipulated in the advertisement or the

notice inviting application, the others cannot derive any

benefit on the basis of the said decision since equality

not to be claimed being a negative right.

Reference in this regard may be made to the

judgment rendered in State of Bihar & Ors. vs.

Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., AIR 2000 SC

2306 wherein at paragraph-30 it has been laid down

hereunder:-

"The concept of equality as envisaged under Art. 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals other cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits."

Reference in this regard may also be made to the

judgment rendered in Basawaraj & Anr. vs. Special

Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, in

particular, paragraph 8, which reads as hereunder:

"8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have 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. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it 22 cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an 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 a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible."

Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr vs. State of Punbaj &

Ors., (2016) 6 SCC 532 at paragraph 16 held as

hereunder:

"16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the other candidates were appointed in the post against dereserved category, the same benefit should also be extended to the appellants. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not

envisage negative equalities. In State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma it was held as under:

15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake."

17. Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners-

appellants has laid much emphasis on the judgment

rendered in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State Of

Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., (2015) 17 SCC 709,

but, we after giving our thoughtful consideration to the

said judgment are of the view that the said issue is

totally on different facts, hence is not applicable in view

of the factual difference to the effect that in the said

case, the minimum qualification prescribed for applying

to the post of Jammu and Kashmir Forest Service Range

Officers Grade I was "BSc (Forestry) or equivalent from

any university recognised by ICAR". The Indian Council

of Forest Research & Education (in short "ICFRE")

issued Notification dated 15.01.1999 clarifying that the

syllabus of State Forest Service (in short 'SFS') Colleges

was very much akin to that of Indira Gandhi National

Forest Academy (in Short "IGNFA"), therefore,

considering the high standard of training and education

in the SFS Colleges, the ICFRE resolved that "SFS

College Diploma to be treated as equivalent to M.Sc.

(Forestry)" and considering the equivalent clause, as

provided in the advertisement, judgment has been

rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court by directing for

consideration of candidature of such candidate, who

have got degree in M. Sc. (Forestery), but here in this

case there is no equivalence clause, as would be evident

from the advertisements and further, there is no

declaration by any competent body treating different

streams of History i.e. Ancient, Medieval and Modern as

a degree in History in its entirety.

18. This Court, after giving thoughtful consideration of

the facts, as discussed herein above and after going

across the findings recorded by learned Single Judge

and after considering the entire aspect of the matter vis-

à-vis legal position and considering the terms of the

advertisement, is of the view that the learned Single

Judge has rightly come to the finding about decision

taken by the authority in not considering the

candidature of the writ petitioners-appellants since they

are not having degree at graduation level with the

subject "History" and as such has directed the authority

to exclusively consider the candidature of such

candidates, who have obtained degree exclusively in the

subject 'History' as per the advertisement.

19. We, therefore, are of the view that the impugned

judgment cannot be faulted with.

20. In view thereof, the appeal fails and is accordingly,

dismissed.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Alankar/ -

A.F.R.