Jharkhand High Court
Rajeev Mani Tripathi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 November, 2021
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
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 2 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 3
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 4 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. 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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."10
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, 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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.