Jharkhand High Court
Rakhi Kumari Wife Of Manoj Kumar vs The Jharkhand Academic Council Through ... on 3 January, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 999 of 2014
1. Rakhi Kumari wife of Manoj Kumar, resident of Qr. No. Type-
II/TS-108, New A.G. Colony, Doranda, PO & PS Doranda, District
Ranchi.
2. Shayra Perween wife of Jahangir Alam, resident of Village Chai
Kala Quari Mohalla, PO Dadpur, PS Chouparan, District
Hazaribagh.
... Petitioners
-versus-
1. The Jharkhand Academic Council through its Chairman, Tata
Road, Gyandip Complex, Barganwa, Namkom, Ranchi.
2. The State of Jharkhand through Director, Primary Education,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Pinky Shaw, Advocate
Ms. Riya Narain, Advocate
AC to Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP III
----
9/ 03.01.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 04.01.2014 contained
in Memo No.JAC/Vidhi/66/13/CC/23/14 (Annexure 8), whereby the Jharkhand
Academic Council has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to declare their
result of examination for appointment of teacher, which was held way back in
the year 2013.
3. This is the second round of litigation. It is the case of the
respondents that the petitioners could not furnish the Teachers Training
Certificate before 24.05.2013, rather deposited the same beyond the said
date. Respondents did not publish the result of the petitioners solely on the
ground that the Teachers Training Certificate was furnished after 24.05.2013,
whereas in the case of others, namely, Sadanand and Abhimanyu Mishra, the
respondents have accepted their certificate beyond the last date and have
published their result.
4. Petitioners, on same grievance, approached this Court in the
earlier round of litigation in W.P.(C) No.4375 of 2013. This Court disposed of
the writ petition with a direction to the petitioners to approach Jharkhand
Academic Council by filing representation. Representation was filed and
subsequently impugned order was passed rejecting the claim of the
petitioners.
5. From the petition and the arguments, it is admitted that the
petitioners have deposited the Teachers Training Certificate after 24.05.2013.
The corrigendum to the advertisement vide memo No. JAC/PTR/20210/12-
SECY/238/13 dated 21.05.2013 in Newspaper of regional language "Dainik
Jagran" published on 22.05.2013 clearly stipulated that the certificates should
be deposited by 24.05.2013 before 05.00 p.m. Any certificate deposited after
that will not be entertained and results of such candidates will not be
published. Admittedly, the petitioners had deposited their certificates beyond
24.05.2013. So far as Sadanand is concerned, in the counter affidavit, a
specific stand has been taken by the respondents that he had deposited the
certificate on 03.05.2013. Petitioner disputes the aforesaid fact. So far as
Abhimanyu Mishra is concerned, nothing has been mentioned in the counter
affidavit. The fact remains that admittedly, the petitioner had deposited the
certificate after 24.05.2013. It was the mandate of the respondents to deposit
the certificate by 24.05.2013 before 05.00 p.m., which the petitioner did not do.
Thus, the respondents refused to publish the result of these petitioners. No
illegality can be found in the action of the respondents. So far as Sadanand
and Abhimanyu Mishra are concerned, Sadanand, as per the respondents,
had deposited the certificate before the specified date and so far as
Abhimanyu Mishra is concerned, nothing has been mentioned. Even if for the
sake of argument, it is admitted that Abhimanyu Mishra had deposited the
certificate beyond the specified date, petitioner cannot be given the benefit of
equality in illegality.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chebrolu Leela
Prasad Rao versus State of A.P. reported in (2021) 11 SCC 401 at
paragraph 95 has held that concept of equality cannot be pressed to commit
another wrong. Paragraph 95 of the said judgment reads as under: -
95. The concept of equality cannot be pressed to commit
another wrong. The concept of equality enshrined in Article
14 of the Constitution is a positive concept. It is not a
concept of negative equality. It cannot be used to perpetuate
an illegality. Equity cannot be applied with it arises out of
illegality. The d octrine of equity would not be attracted
when the benefits were conferred on the basis of illegality,
as held in Usha Mehta v. State of A.P. [Usha Mehta v. State
of A.P., (2012) 12 SCC 419]; John Vallamattom v. Union of
India, (2003) 6 SCC 611]; Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi
Devi [Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi, (2009) 7 SCC
205 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 304] and State of W.B. v. Debasish
Mukherjee [State of W.B. v. Debasish Mukherjee, (2011) 14
SCC 187 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 869 : AIR 2011 SC 3667].
7. In the case of Union of India versus Arulmozhi Iniarasu
reported in (2011) 7 SCC 397, at paragraph 26, thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under: -
26. Lastly, as regards the submission that the action of the
appellants is highly discriminatory inasmuch as some
similarly situated persons have been appointed/absorbed as
Sepoys, the argument is stated to be rejected. It is well
settled that a writ of mandamus can be issued by the High
Court only when there exists a legal right in the writ
petitioner and corresponding legal obligation on the State.
Only because an illegality has been committed, the same
cannot be directed to be perpetuated. It is trite law that there
cannot be equality in illegality. (Ref. Sushanta Tagore v.
Union of India [(2005) 3 SCC 16], U.P. State Sugar Corpn.
Ltd. v. Sant Raj Singh [(2006) 9 SCC 82 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
1610], State v. Sashi Balasubramanian [(2006) 13 SCC 252 :
(2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 337] and State of Orissa v. Prasana
Kumar Sahoo [(2007) 15 SCC 129 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 765].)
8. Thus, I find no merits in this writ petition. This writ petition is,
accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands
disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
