Jharkhand High Court

Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 8 October, 2021

                               1

 IN   THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  L.P.A. No. 827 of 2019
                           With
                    I.A No. 11419 of 2019
                           -------
Sanjay Kumar, aged about 43 years, S/o Purushottam Yadav,
R/o Village - Aaambagan, Mihijam, Jamtara, PO-Mihijam, PS-
Mihijam, District-Jamtara (Jharkhand), Pin Code-815354.
                                            ...... .... Appellant
                             Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Ranchi, PO-
Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training
and Rajbhasa, at Project Building, Ranchi, PO-Dhurwa, PS-
Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
3. Principal Secretary, Human Resource and Development, at
Project Building, Ranchi, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur,
District-Ranchi
4. Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, situated
at    F-49/50,     Sector-III,     Dhurwa,   PO-Dhurwa,    PS-
Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi, Pin - 834004.
5. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, situated at F-49/50, Sector-III, Dhurwa, PO-
Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi, Pin - 834004
6. Directorate of Secondary Education, MDI Building,
Jharkhand Mantralaya, at PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur,
District - Ranchi (Jharkhand), Pin Code-834004
                                        ..... ...    Respondents
                           --------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                           --------
For the Appellant    : Mr. R.N.Sahay, Sr. Advocate
                       M/s. Yashvardhan, Akriti Shree,
                       Kirtivardhan, Ritesh Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
                           --------
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Order No.04/ Dated 08.10.2021

I.A No. 11419 of 2019

This interlocutory application has been preferred

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay

of 04 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

Heard parties.

Having regard to the averments made in the

application and submissions made on behalf of the appellant,

we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from

sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of

limitation. As such, the delay of 04 days in preferring the

appeal is hereby condoned.

I.A. No. 11419 of 2019 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No. 827 of 2019

Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and

the learned counsel for the respondents.

The instant intra-court appeal has been filed under

clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order/judgment

dated 20.09.2019 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2005 of 2019 and

analogous cases, whereby and whereunder, the writ petitions

have been dismissed holding the writ petitioner ineligible for

the concerned post and further it has been 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.

The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings

made in the writ petitions, which are required to be

enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are that

the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, (hereinafter

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

being Advertisement No. 21/2016, known as „Graduate

Trained Teacher Competitive Examination-2016', inviting on-

line applications from eligible candidates for filling up the

posts of 'Graduate Trained Teacher' for different subjects,

including the subject History. Pursuant thereto, the writ

petitioner-appellant applied for the said post and participated

in the selection process. However, on the date of verification of

the testimonials, it was found that the writ petitioner-

appellant has submitted Graduate degree in

Ancient/Medieval/Modern/Ancient History, Culture &

Archaeology etc. and on being asked by the JSSC-the

examining body, the writ petitioner-appellant failed to submit

the certificate of 'degree' in Graduation/'Master of Arts' in Post

Graduation with the subject 'History' in terms of the

advertisement, as such show cause notice was issued to him.

Being aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner-

appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing

writ petition, which was heard and has been dismissed by the

learned Single Judge by a common order, against which, the

present intra-court appeal has been filed.

The case of the writ petitioner-appellant is that he

possess the educational qualification, as stipulated in the

advertisement, with the subject Ancient/Medieval/Modern/

Ancient History, Culture & Archaeology etc., as such he is

eligible for consideration for appointment on the said post.

Further case of the writ petitioner-appellant is that even

though he has been allowed to participate in the selection

process and he has obtained more marks than the last

selected candidate, who has been taken under consideration

zone for selection, his candidature has been rejected.

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

for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the

learned Single Judge while rejecting the aforesaid claim of the

writ petitioner-appellant has committed gross error in not

considering the certificate issued by the Allahabad University

through its Department of Medieval and Modern History,

which conferred degree in favour of the writ petitioner-

appellant, in different wings/streams of History, it cannot be

construed that the appellant is not having the Graduate

degree with the subject "History". Learned senior counsel

appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant, taking reliance

upon the certificate of National Eligibility Test (NET) issued by

the University Grants Commission to some of the writ

petitioners-appellants in other analogous cases making them

eligible to teach the subject "History", has submitted that

U.G.C. has treated their degree in its entirety as the subject

'History'. His further contention is that different Universities of

the different States are treating the degree issued in favour of

the writ petitioner-appellant valid even though not of History

rather some of the streams of the History, he is being treated

as holder of the degree in graduation/post graduation with

the subject History.

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 writ

petitioner-appellant cannot be considered and if it will be

considered it will amount to giving relaxation to such

candidate, which is not permissible.

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 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) was 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 petitioner-appellant

that he is not possessing 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 at graduate/post graduate level, if obtained in

some of the streams of History and not in History its entirety,

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.

This Court, while considering the aforesaid findings of

the learned Single Judge, deem 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 petitioner-appellant without assailing the advertisement can claim parity of his degree with the subject History, as also the eligibility criteria, as has been fixed by the NCTE?

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 the

case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors

reported in AIR 2012 SC 1803. The relevant paragraphs,

paragraph nos. 28 and 29 of the said judgment, are quoted

hereunder as:

"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 can not 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 the case of Bihar Public Service

Commission & Ors vs. Kamini and Ors reported in (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 candidate, 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 not been considered due to lack of educational

eligibility criteria, the matter went before the Hon'ble Patna

High Court wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed

the writ petition but the same has been reversed by the

Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal, against which, the

Bihar Public Service Commission has 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 as:

"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 realised 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."

This Court has 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 appellant has shown

himself having obtained graduate in 'History' at the time of

filling up on-line application form. On that pretext, he has

been allowed to appear in the assessment/performance test,

as per the process of selection, as stipulated in the

advertisement, in which, he has been found to be successful

and in consequence thereof, he has been 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 notice to the writ petitioner-appellant in order to

provide him opportunity of hearing and opportunity to satisfy

the examining body, whereupon the writ petitioner-appellant

appeared and tried to justify the certificate obtained by him

from different Universities in different streams of 'History' like

that of Ancient/Medieval/Modern/Ancient History, Culture &

Archaeology etc., but failed to produce any degree in the

subject 'History' in its entirety, as per the advertisement,

therefore, his candidature has been rejected.

Examining body while rejecting the candidature of

the candidate 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 pertinent to mention herein with respect to

aforesaid argument about the constitution of committee but it

is the case of the writ petitioner-appellant that the

constitution of committee has never been assailed before the

learned Single Judge and, therefore, the fact pertaining to

propriety of constitution of committee cannot be allowed to be

agitated at the appellate stage.

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 the case of Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors

Vs. Kamini Devi (supra), wherein it has been held that if any

decree 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 the case of 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.

The issue has been raised by the learned senior

counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant 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

petitioner-appellant has participated in the selection process

by seeing the conditions, stipulated in the advertisement, by

naked eyes and once found to be not eligible he cannot be

allowed to turn around and question the advertisement, as

has been held by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. G.

Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow & Ors. reported in

(1976) 3 SCC 585. For ready reference, paragraph 15 of the

said judgment is quoted hereunder as:

"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 Manak Lal'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 the case of

Omprakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors.

reported in (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 is made to the

judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case

of Marripati Nagaraja Vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh and

Ors. reported in (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 the

case of Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service

Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors. reported in (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."

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 petitioner-appellant

cannot be allowed to question the terms of the advertisement

and further there is no question to allow the writ petitioner-

appellant to raise this issue since this was not raised by the

writ petitioner-appellant before the learned Single Judge.

Mr. Sahay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner

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.

This Court, after appreciation of argument

advanced by learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner-

appellant, 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 the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs.

Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., reported in AIR 2000 SC

2306 wherein at paragraph-30 it has been laid down

hereunder as :-

"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 the case of Basawaraj & Anr. Vs.

Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC

81, in particular paragraph 8, which reads hereunder as:

"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 the case of

Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr Vs. State of Punbaj & Ors

reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532 at paragraph 16 held

hereunder as:

"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."

Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner-

appellant has laid much emphasis on the judgment rendered

in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs State Of Jammu

and Kashmir and Ors reported in (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.