Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Agrawal vs Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. on 17 June, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 683
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.10292/2019
Ashish Agrawal Vs. The Madhya Pradesh Madhya Chhetra
Vidyut Vitran Company Limited Bhopal and another
Gwalior, Dated :17/06/2019
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for petitioner.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the impugned order Annexure P/1 and P/2 be
quashed.
(ii) That, it may be directed that on appropriate post
according to the education i.e. M.Com PGDCA
held by the petitioner, the respondents be directed
to consider and grant appointment in consonance and commensurate to the status of the petitioner.
(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted."
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that it is true that his mother is a government employee, but the respondents had granted appointment on compassionate ground to one Tanuj Udainiya although his mother was also in government job and, therefore, the respondents have discriminated the petitioner and such an action of respondents by rejecting the application for compassionate appointment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. So far as the grant of compassionate appointment to one Tanuj Udainiya, whose mother is also in government job, is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that by applying the principle of 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.10292/2019 Ashish Agrawal Vs. The Madhya Pradesh Madhya Chhetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited Bhopal and another negative equality no such benefit can be extended to the petitioner.
The Supreme Court in the case of Mangalam Organics Limited Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 7 SCC 221 has held as under:-
"41. Examination of the matter in the aforesaid perspective would provide an answer to most of the arguments of the appellants. It would neither be a case of discrimination nor can it be said that the appellants have any right under Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which has been violated by non-issuance of notification under Section 11-C of the Act. Once the appellant accepts that in law it was liable to pay the duty, even if some of the units have been able to escape payment of duty for certain reasons, the appellant cannot say that no duty should be recovered from it by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution. It is well established that the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept and cannot be applied in the negative."
The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Co. and another reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437 has held as under:-
"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 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.10292/2019 Ashish Agrawal Vs. The Madhya Pradesh Madhya Chhetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited Bhopal and another 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."
The Supreme Court in the case of Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 11 SCC 641 has held as under:-
"28. This Court in Union of India v. International Trading Co. has held that two wrongs do not make one right. The appellant cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case, directions should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right but could be perpetuating another wrong and in such matters, there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 cannot be pressed into service in such cases. But the concept of equal treatment presupposes existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring wrongs on a par. The affected parties have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative quality. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the above matter, the submission of the appellant has no force. In case, some of the persons have been granted 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.10292/2019 Ashish Agrawal Vs. The Madhya Pradesh Madhya Chhetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited Bhopal and another permits wrongly, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of the wrong done by the Government."
The Supreme Court in the case of Vishal Properties (P) Ltd.
Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2007) 11 SCC 172 has held as under:-
"13. Even otherwise, Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate an illegality. It provides for positive equality and not negative equality. Therefore, we are not bound to direct any authority to repeat the wrong action done by it earlier. In Sushanta Tagore v. Union of India this Court rejected such a contention as sought to be advanced in the present case by observing: (SCC pp. 28-29, para 36) "36. Only because some advantages would ensue to the people in general by reason of the proposed development, the same would not mean that the ecology of the place would be sacrificed. Only because some encroachments have been made and unauthorised buildings have been constructed, the same by itself cannot be a good ground for allowing other constructional activities to come up which would be in violation of the provisions of the Act. Illegal encroachments, if any, may be removed in accordance with law. It is trite law that there is no equality in illegality."
14. This view also finds support from the judgments of this Court in Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann and Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services.
15. In Financial Commr. (Revenue) v. Gulab Chand this Court rejected the contention that as other similarly situated persons had been retained in service, persons senior to the petitioner could not have been discharged during the period of probation observing that even if no action had been taken in similar situation against similarly situated persons 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.10292/2019 Ashish Agrawal Vs. The Madhya Pradesh Madhya Chhetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited Bhopal and another then too it did not confer any legal right upon the petitioner.
16. In Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh and Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar this Court held that courts cannot issue a direction that the same mistake be perpetuated on the ground of discrimination or hardship.
17. Any action/order contrary to law does not confer any right upon any person for similar treatment. (See State of Punjab v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal; Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi; Union of India v. International Trading Co. and Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana.)
18. Recently in State of Kerala v. K. Prasad it was inter alia held as follows: (SCC p. 147, para 14) "14. Dealing with such pleas at some length, this Court in Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh has held that: (SCC p. 750, para 8) '8. ... 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 [under Article 226] cannot be exercised for such a purpose.' This position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. (See Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi.) It would, thus, suffice to say that an order made in favour of a person in violation of the prescribed procedure cannot form a legal premise for any other person to claim parity with the said illegal or irregular order. A judicial forum cannot be used to perpetuate the illegalities."
5. As per the policy for appointment on compassionate ground, a 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.10292/2019 Ashish Agrawal Vs. The Madhya Pradesh Madhya Chhetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited Bhopal and another person cannot be granted appointment on compassionate ground, if any member of the family of the deceased employee is in government job. Admittedly, in the present case, the mother of the petitioner is already in government job and accordingly, the petitioner cannot be granted appointment on compassionate ground de hors the policy.
6. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Arun* Judge
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2019.06.18 13:49:48 +05'30'