Manipur High Court
Shri Chintu Wahengbam vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 16 June, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
2025:MNHC:119
reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 1110 of 2022
Shri Chintu Wahengbam, aged about 30 years, S/o W. Sailesh
Kumar Singh, Nongmeibung Chakpram Leirak, P.O. & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
...... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner
(Home), Government of Manipur, office at Old Secretariat
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
2. The Director General of Police, Manipur, Office PHQ,
Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
........Official Respondent/s
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioners :: Mr. Th. Khagemba, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. Shyam Sharma, G.A.
Date of Hearing :: 14.06.2024/17.12.2024/26.05.2025
Date of Judgment and Order :: 16.06.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. Th. Khagemba, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned G.A. for the State respondents.
Page 1
2025:MNHC:119
[2] The present writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of
a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
order directing the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned order
dated 07.10.2022 issued by the Police Department Manipur and with a
prayer for considering appointment of the petitioner to the post of Asst.
Sub-Inspector of Police (Male/Civil) in Police Department Manipur as done
in the case of 4 (four) other similarly situated candidate in compliance of
the common order dated 16.09.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) Nos.
300 of 2016 & 660 of 2020. In respect of the petitioner, this Court also
passed an order dated 29.09.2022 in WP(C) No. 824 of 2022 for
consideration of his representation for appointment as ASI in Manipur
Police.
[3] The Director General of Police, Manipur issued a notification
dated 24.04.2010 for direct recruitment of 112 post of Assistant Sub-
Inspector (ASI) of Police (Male/Civil) and the requisite qualification is PUC
or intermediate or equivalent. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted duly
filled up form for the post of ASI of Police (Male/Civil) in Police Department,
Manipur to the competent authorities. As a part of recruitment process, the
Physical Efficiency Test (PET) was conducted at 2nd MR Ground and the
petitioner was declared successful. Thereafter, written test examination
was conducted by the Selection Committee and on 25.02.2013, a
notification was issued by the Director, Manipur Police Training College
(MPTC), Pangei declaring the result of the Written Text. In the said
notification, 480 candidates including the petitioner (who is at serial No. 94)
was declared successful for appearing for Interview/Viva-Voce Test.
Page 2
2025:MNHC:119
Thereafter, Interview/Viva-Voce Test was held in the year 2013 and vide
notification dated 03.03.2014 issued by the Director General of Police,
Manipur, the result of the DPC was declared. In the said notification, out of
480 candidates, 315 candidates were recommended for selection to the
post of ASI (Male/Civil) in the Police Department and the petitioner's name
was not recommended.
[4] However, the said DPC had recommended 203 more
candidates than the notified vacancies i.e. 112 vide notification dated
24.04.2010 issued by the Director General of Police and no candidates
were kept in the panel/wait list vide notification dated 03.03.2014. Later on,
2 wait lists were prepared i.e. first wait list consist of 32 incumbents and
second, consist of 53 incumbents and both the wait list were signed by the
Chairman and two members of the DPC. Vide letters dated 06.11.2014 and
17.11.2014 issued by the Joint Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur
conveying the Government approval for filling up of 32 post of ASI
(Male/Civil) for the upgraded vacancies arose from the first wait list
consisting of 32 incumbents and 55 post of ASI (Male/Civil) for the
upgraded vacancies arose from the second wait list consisting of 52
incumbents plus 3 other incumbents not listed in the second wait list.
[5] Vide order dated 04.02.2015 issued by the Director General of
Police, Manipur, 368 candidates were approved for appointment as ASI
(Male/Civil) in the Manipur Police Department. Therefore, it is clear that 53
non-recommended candidates were approved by the Government over the
actual recommendation of 315 candidates vide notification dated
Page 3
2025:MNHC:119
03.03.2014. Being aggrieved, the petitioner along with 4 others submitted
an application dated 12.03.2014 to the State Public Information
Officer/Addl. Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur under Section 6 of
the RTI Act for furnishing the certified copy/Xerox copy of the documents.
As there was no response for the sought information, the petitioner and
others filed an appeal dated 03.05.2014 before the appellate authority
under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the authorities neither
furnish the sought information nor dispose of the RTI application dated
12.03.2014 and appeal dated 03.05.2014 till date.
[6] As per the Office Memorandum dated 20.12.1995 issued by
the Under Secretary, Department of personnel and Administrative Reforms
(PD), Government of Manipur, only the names of the persons upto 10% of
the vacancies for which the selection process was conducted be
considered for waiting list. However, in the present case, the waiting list is
more than 10% of the vacancies and as such, the same is violative of the
Office Memorandum dated 20.12.1995.
[7] In compliance of the order dated 16.09.2021 in WP(C) Nos.
300 of 2016 & 660 of 2020, 4 candidates including 2 candidates who filed
the aforesaid RTI application along with the petitioner herein, were
considered for appointment to the post of ASI (Male/Civil). Vide order dated
22.04.2022 issued by the Director General of Police wherein approved for
appointment as ASI (Male/Civil) of Police in the Manipur Police Department
in respect of 4 candidates who were not recommended by the DPC as
successful candidates.
Page 4
2025:MNHC:119
[8] The petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.08.2022 to
the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur and the Director
General of Police, Manipur for consideration of appointment to the post of
ASI (Male/Civil) in the Manipur Police Department in pursuant to the
requisition dated 24.04.2010, as done in the case of other similarly situated
candidates. However, the respondents failed to consider the said
representation submitted by the petitioner and as such, the petitioner filed a
writ petition being WP(C) No. 824 of 2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of
Manipur for directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the
representation dated 01.08.2022 within a stipulated period of time and the
same was disposed of on 29.09.2022 by directing the respondents to
consider and dispose the representation submitted by the petitioner within
a period of 8 weeks by passing a speaking order.
[9] However, the Police Department vide its impugned order
dated 07.10.2022 rejected the said representation submitted by the
petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner failed to obtain the
qualifying marks as the petitioner's score was less than the last selected
candidates in General Category (UR) i.e. '51' marks. Amongst the 55 ASI
waiting list candidates who were also subsequently selected, there are 36
candidates who were kept in the waiting list secured between 50-47 marks
in General/OBC category. Furthermore, the marks secured by 4 candidates
who were appointed to the post of ASI (Male/Civil) in compliance of the
order dated 16.09.2021 in WP(C) Nos. 300 of 2016 & 660 of 2020 are less
than 47 marks. The case of these 4 candidates and the present petitioner
are similarly situated and the order dated 29.09.2022 in WP(C) No. 824 of
Page 5
2025:MNHC:119
2022 in respect of the present petitioner which is analogous to the order
dated 16.09.2021 in WP(C) Nos. 300 of 2016 & 660 of 2020 in respect of
the 4 candidates. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order dated
07.10.2022 be quashed and set aside.
[10] The respondent No.2 filed a short counter affidavit stating that
the number of vacancies for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police
increased to 317 from the advertised number of 112, after taking into
consideration fresh vacancies and new posts created. 55 candidates were
placed in waiting list. Later on, 368 candidates including waiting list
candidates were appointed as Assistant Sub Inspectors after due approval.
It is stated that four candidates namely, (i) Akoijam Tennyson Singh, (ii)
Gautam Ayekpam, (iii) Yambem Bipin, & (iv) Sagolsem Poireton Meitei
were appointed as Assistant Sub Inspectors in compliance of the order
dated 16.09.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) Nos. 300 of 2016 & 660
of 2020. However, the representation of the petitioner was rejected as he
failed to score the minimum qualifying mark in General Category, i.e., '51'
marks in the selection process. Respondent No.1 has not filed any
separate counter affidavit.
[11] The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit stating that the above
four persons subsequently appointed in terms of the court's order were
also included in the list of "NOT QUALIFIED CANDIDATES" along with the
petitioner herein and others. All these candidates scored less than 51
marks. Moreover, in the wait list, there were 36 candidates (UR) who
scored less than 51 marks, but they were also appointed as Assistant Sub
Page 6
2025:MNHC:119
Inspectors of Police. Comparative marks of the four persons appointed
from the list of 'Not Qualified Candidates' and the petitioner are as follows:
NOT QUALIFIED CANDIDATES
Sl. No. Name Total Marks
[12] The stand taken by the respondent No.2 in the counter
affidavit is that the petitioner was not considered, as he scored less than
the minimum qualifying score of '51' marks for UR candidates and hence
could not be appointed as ASI.
[13] Mr. Th. Khagemba, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner scored 40 marks in
total in the recruitment test for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police.
He was not recommended by the DPC, but his name was placed in the list
of 'NOT QUALIFIED CANDIDATES' along with others who were later on
appointed vide order dated 07.10.2022 issued by the office of DGP,
Manipur and all these candidates scored less than '51' marks. It is also
pointed out that all the 51 candidates in the Waiting List also scored less
than '51' marks and 36 candidates from UR category having less than '51'
marks, were also appointed. It is vehemently submitted that the stand of
Page 7
2025:MNHC:119
the respondent that the petitioner scored less than 51 marks and hence not
eligible for appointment, is without any basis.
[14] Mr. Th. Khagemba, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on
the decision in the case of State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha: (2006) 2 SCC
747, where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that similarly situated person
should not be treated differently only on the ground that such person did
not approach court unlike others who got the relief. Para 29 is reproduced
below:
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time
postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated
similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that
would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated
differently. It is furthermore well settled that the question of seniority
should be governed by the rules. It may be true that this Court took
notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the meantime she
had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a
Category I post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to
adjust her must be held to have been issued only with a view to
accommodate her therein as otherwise she might have been
reverted and not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to which
she was not otherwise entitled to."
[15] It is pointed out that the stand of the respondent that the four
candidates, who were similarly situated with the petitioner, were appointed
purportedly in compliance of court's order, is without any substance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the
common order dated 16.09.2021 [Annexure A-10] passed by this Court in
WP(C) Nos. 330 of 2016 & 660 of 2020: A. Tennyson & Ors. v. State of
Manipur & Ors., wherein this Court only directed the State respondents to
consider the representation submitted by these 4 candidates and to pass a
Page 8
2025:MNHC:119
speaking order. It is submitted that there was no direction for outright
appointment of these 4 candidates. However, in the order dated
22.04.2022 issued by the respondent, it was mentioned that the
appointments were in compliance of this Court's direction. Since the
appointments of these persons who scored less than 51 marks, were not
directed by this Court, it is urged that the plea of the respondent that the
petitioner could not be appointed as he scored less than 51 marks, has no
basis and the petitioner is also entitled for appointment on parity with the
similarly situated persons.
[16] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate, submits that the
case of the petitioner is not similar with those four candidates who have
been appointed in terms of Court's order. It is pointed out that there is no
order from court in favour of the petitioner except for consideration of his
representation and he could not be appointed as he scored less than
qualifying marks of 51 in the recruitment test. Even if some persons were
appointed contrary to the rule or scheme, the same cannot be extended to
the petitioner on the basis of principle of equality. Learned GA emphasises
that equality works in positive aspect and the principle cannot resorted to
perpetuate illegality. It is submitted that the writ petition be dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
Issues to be Decided:
[17] The points of consideration involved in the present case are:
Page 9
2025:MNHC:119
I. Whether the minimum qualifying marks (Cut-off) is fixed as
"51" for UR candidates in the recruitment test, as alleged by the
respondents?
II. Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus can be extended to
the petitioner to confer, the benefits granted to similarly situated
persons in contravention of norms, by invoking the principle of
equality enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India?
III. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief in the peculiar
facts of the present case?
[18] This Court has minutely examined the case record, the
pleadings of the party, the relevant law in this regard and the submissions
made at the bar. It is the stand of the respondents that the cut off mark for
UR candidates for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in terms of
the advertisement dated 24.04.2010 is 51. Since the petitioner's total mark
was only 40 in the test, he could not be considered for appointment in
terms of this Court 's order dated 29.09.2022 in WP(C) No. 824 of 2022
(filed by the petitioner herein) directing the respondents to consider his
representation dated 01.08.2022 praying for appointment as Assistant Sub
Inspector of Police (Civil/Male) on parity with the four similarly situated
candidates. It is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioner did
not score minimum cut-off mark of '51' fixed for UR candidates, while the
appointments of similarly situated four candidates, namely, (i) Akoijam
Tennyson Singh, (ii) Gautam Ayekpam, (iii) Yambem Bipin, & (iv)
Sagolsem Poireton Meitei were in compliance of this Court's order dated
Page 10
2025:MNHC:119
16.09.2021 [Annexure A-10] WP(C) Nos. 330 of 2016 & 660 of 2020: A.
Tennyson & Ors. v. State of Manipur & Ors. However, on perusal of this
Court's order dated 16.09.2021, it is crystal clear that the direction was only
to consider the representation of those four candidates who were included
along with the petitioner in the list of 'Not Qualified Candidates'. There was
no specific direction from this Court for appointment of those four persons
except for consideration of their representation. Admittedly, all the
candidates placed in the category of 'Not Qualified Candidates' scored less
than '51' marks in total. In this list, caste category of the candidates is not
mentioned, however some of them seem belong to ST category. The
category of the four appointed candidates cannot be ascertained from the
list. On the other hand, the respondents have not made any specific
rebuttal to plea of the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit that 36 candidates
from UR category from Waiting List and subsequently appointed, scored
less than '51' marks. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that the cut-off mark for UR candidates for appointment as Assistant
Sub Inspector of Police in pursuance of advertisement dated 24.04.2010
cannot be '51' as alleged by the respondents.
Principle of Equality before Law: Whether Positive or Negative:
[19] Now the next question is whether this Court can issue a writ in
the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner
to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on parity with the four
persons who are similarly situated with him and appointed vide order dated
22.04.2022 [Annexure A-11], purportedly in compliance to the order dated
Page 11
2025:MNHC:119
16.09.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) Nos. 300 of 2016 & 660 of
2020. The answer to this question depends on the fact whether their
appointments were as per rules or not. If the appointment of the similarly
situated persons is as per rules after following all formalities, such other
persons are also entitled to similar relief by application of the principle of
equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. On the other hand, if
the appointment is contrary to the rules and general accepted norms,
similarly situated person will not get the same benefit as the doctrine of
equality cannot be stretched to perpetuate illegal things. It is accepted
principle of law that two wrongs do not make an illegal act as legal. In other
word, the principle of equality before law does not extend to negative to
confer a benefit contrary to law.
[20] It will be fruitful if some references are made to the decisions
in this regard. In the case of State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2
SCC 747, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that similarly situated person
should not be treated differently only on the ground that such person did
not approach court unlike others who got the relief.
[21] In the case of Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh: (1995) 1
SCC 745, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the concept of negative
equality and held as follows:
8. We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be
called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High
Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since
we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary
to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the
mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular
order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be
Page 12
2025:MNHC:119
the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of
discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be
legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first
before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner.
If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to
law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is
obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the
basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat
the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The
extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be
exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-
authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not
entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality
over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be
corrected, if it can be done according to law -- indeed, wherever it
is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to
correct such wrong orders in accordance with law -- but even if it
cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis
for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to
repeat the illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal
act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a
legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas
would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable
mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of
law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the other person is
found to be a lawful and justified one it can be followed and a
similar relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that the
petitioners' case is similar to the other persons' case. But then why
examine another person's case in his absence rather than
examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the
Court and seeking the relief. Is it not more appropriate and
convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the
Court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his
case than to enquire into the correctness of the order made or
action taken in another person's case, which other person is not
before the case nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a
course --barring exceptional situations -- would neither be
advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot
ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ
jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has
been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must
be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action
is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its
own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal
principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be
equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts
Page 13
2025:MNHC:119
nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as
understood in the judicial world. (What is the position in the case of
orders passed by authorities in exercise of their quasi-judicial
power, we express no opinion. That can be dealt with when a
proper case arises.)
[22] In the case of Union of India v. International Trading Co.,
(2003) 5 SCC 437, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that illegality cannot
be perpetuated in the name of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution
and relevant para is reproduced below:
"13. What remains now to be considered, is the effect of permission
granted to the thirty two vessels. As highlighted by learned counsel
for the appellants, even if it is accepted that there was any
improper permission, that may render such permissions vulnerable
so far as the thirty two vessels are concerned, but it cannot come to
the aid of the respondents. It is not necessary to deal with that
aspect because two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot
claim that since something wrong has been done in another case
direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be
setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In
such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of
equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
(in short "the Constitution") cannot be pressed into service in such
cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is
existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance
repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if
hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in
some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the
respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish
strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming
negative equality."
[23] In the case of R. Muthukumar and Ors. vs. The Chairman
and Managing Director, TANGEDCO and Ors.: MANU/SC/0159/2022:
2022 INSC 157, Hon'ble Apex Court held that wrong order granted to
similarly situated person cannot be granted to others in the name of
Page 14
2025:MNHC:119
equality, as earlier wrong cannot be perpetuated. Relevant para is quoted
for ready reference.
"24. A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that
there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a
benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without
legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied
upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj and Anr. v.
Special Land Acquisition Officer MANU/SC/0850/2013 : (2013) 14
SCC 81, this Court ruled that:
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 cannot be perpetuated.
Other decisions have enunciated or applied this principle (Ref:
Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh MANU/SC/0136/1995 : (1995) 1
SCC 745, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana
MANU/SC/1054/2004 : (2005) 9 SCC 164, K.K. Bhalla v. State of
M.P. MANU/SC/0234/2006 : (2006) 3 SCC 581; Fuljit Kaur v.
State of Punjab MANU/SC/0411/2010 : (2010) 11 SCC 455, and
Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0497/2014 : (2014) 15
SCC 715). Recently, in The State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar
Senapati this Court observed as follows:
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."
Page 15
2025:MNHC:119
[24] Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the recent case of Tinku vs.
State of Haryana and Ors. (13.11.2024 - SC) : MANU/SC/1212/2024:
2024 INSC 867 that the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India is clothed in positivity based on law. A wrong benefit,
conferred to somebody contrary to a scheme or rule, cannot bestow the
same benefit upon others in the name of equality. The relevant para may
be reproduced for better appreciation of the concept.
"9. That apart, the claim as has been stated above, cannot be
accepted being not supported with any statutory backing. This is
required for making any claim including a claim for compassionate
appointment, which is an exception to the general Rule of
appointment requiring a proper advertisement and selection
process to be followed as per Rules which is an accepted norm. If
some wrong benefit has been conferred or some benefit which is
contrary to the scheme has been granted, it would not bestow a
right upon the others to claim it as a right of equality by reference to
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. There are catena of judgments of this Court that clearly lay
down the principles which govern such claims. Some of which are
Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India MANU/SC/1505/2009 :
2009:INSC:1077 : (2009) 15 SCC 705, Chandigarh Administration
v. Jagjit Singh MANU/SC/0136/1995 : 1995:INSC:16 : (1995) 1
SCC 745, R. Muthukumar v. TANGEDCO MANU/SC/0159/2022 :
2022 INSC 157, Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer MANU/SC/0850/2013 : 2013 INSC 551 : (2013) 14 SCC
81.
11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept
clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a
claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued
mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity
committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of
individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable.
Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some
right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put
forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea.
The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over
Page 16
2025:MNHC:119
again. If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that
would not only be against the tenets of the justice but would negate
its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in
anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can
it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have
legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to
confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification."
[25] From the above cited case laws, it is clear that the settled
proposition of law is 'the benefits to a person or group of persons, both by
the administrative as well as the judicial decisions, are to be extended to
similarly situated persons on application of the principle of equality'.
However, there is an accepted rider to this principle. The benefit so
conferred by the administrative and the judicial decisions should be as per
law. Any benefit granted contrary to statutory rules and instructions cannot
be extended to similarly situated persons, as the doctrine of equality before
law and equal treatment from law, is never intended to enforce a wrong act.
In short, the doctrine of equality cannot be overstretched to perpetuate
wrong things. The duty of court is to stop further proliferation of wrong
things and to rectify the same. This Court is not examining, in this petition,
the legality of the order dated 22.04.202 issued by the DGP, Manipur
appointing those four candidates purportedly in compliance of the court's
order. The petitioner has not prayed for such relief and in fact what is
prayed for is parity with them.
[26] In view of the settled proposition of law that doctrine of
equality cannot be resorted for perpetuating wrongful act, this Court is not
inclined to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus in favour of the
Page 17
2025:MNHC:119
petitioner for appointment as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on parity
with those four candidates who have been appointed even though scored
less than 51 marks.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief:
[27] In the present writ petition, there is a prayer for issuing a writ
in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned order dated
07.10.2022 passed by the office of the DGP, Manipur rejecting the
representation of the petitioner for his request for appointment to the post
of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in parity with the case of those four
candidates who are similarly situated with him. The only ground for
rejection mentioned in the impugned order is that the petitioner "failed to
obtain the qualifying marks. His score is less than the last selected
candidate in General Category (UR), i.e., 51 marks." It is also mentioned in
the impugned order that those four persons were appointed in compliance
of this Court's order dated 16.09.2021. Admittedly, these four persons also
scored less than 51 marks.
[28] From the perusal of order dated 16.09.2021 passed by this
Court in WP(C) Nos. 300 of 2016 & 660 of 2020, it is clear that there was
no specific direction for appointment of those four candidates from 'Not
Qualified Candidates' list. Rather, the direction was for consideration of
their appointment as ASI. However, in the order dated 22.04.2022 issued
by the DGP, Manipur, it has wrongly been mentioned that the appointment
was made in compliance of the Court's order. Since the appointment was
not in strict term as per the direction of this Court and also admittedly below
Page 18
2025:MNHC:119
51 marks cut-off, this Court is not inclined to issue the writ of mandamus in
favour of the petitioner on the principle of parity, as observed in para 27
above. However, the legality of the impugned order can be viewed from
another angle. The only reason given by the respondent for rejecting the
representation for appointment is that the petitioner failed to score
minimum cut-off '51' marks for UR category. Since the respondents have
not specifically denied the averments of the petitioner in his rejoinder
affidavit that 36 number of candidates belonging to UR category from the
Wait List and scoring less than '51' marks were appointed, the only reason
given by the respondents is untenable, wrong and cannot be sustained.
Moreover, the appointment of the four candidates similarly situated with the
petitioner and scoring less than '51' marks was never directed by this
Court.
[29] In the case in hand, the respondents are blowing hot and cold.
On one hand, they were appointing candidates belonging to UR category
with scores less than the cut-off mark of '51'. On the other hand, they
denied the request for the petitioner only on the ground that he failed to
score minimum qualifying mark of '51'. It is the settled proposition of law
that a person cannot take two inconsistent and totally divergent stands in
the same transaction. In the case of Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana:
(1985) 4SCC 43, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as "...... It is needless
to say that the State Government is expected to function as a model
employer".
Page 19
2025:MNHC:119
[30] In the present case, the State respondents did not act like a
model employer in a welfare society in the matter of public employment. On
one hand, they have appointed persons below minimum eligibility criteria
on the pretext of court's order and on the other hand, similarly situated
persons have been denied the same treatment. As held above, this Court
has been refrained from passing similar order in the case of the petitioner,
only on the ground of non-applicability of the principle of equity and parity
in perpetuating wrongful act. However, it may be noted that the approach of
the respondents is highly unethical, arbitrary, and policy of pick & choose
without following a definite norm. This Court is compelled to observe that
the State respondents have miserably failed to act fairly as a model
employer.
[31] In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 07.10.2022
passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside with a direction first to decide
the cut-off mark for UR candidates in the recruitment of the Assistant Sub
Inspector of Police (Civil/Male) in terms of the advertisement dated
24.04.2010; and then re-consider the representation of the petitioner
afresh, keeping in mind that this Court never directed for outright
appointment of those four other candidates except for consideration of their
representation in the common order dated 16.09.2021. Since the
recruitment is of the year 2010, it is further directed that the whole exercise
shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Page 20
2025:MNHC:119
[32] With these directions and observations, the writ petition is
partly allowed and is disposed of. No cost.
[33] Send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police,
Manipur for information and necessary compliance.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. Digitally signed
by KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2025.06.16
MARING 15:31:37 +05'30'
Page 21
