Gujarat High Court
Gulabsha Bhikhusha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 18 August, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11442 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to Yes
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
GULABSHA BHIKHUSHA JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA SR. ADV. With
MR DIPEN DESAI(2481) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with
MR VINAY BAIRAGRA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 18/08/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 22
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Vinay Bairagra, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent - State.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the communication dated 3.6.2023 issued by Respondent No. 5 - Director of Accounts and Treasury, whereby the Director has refused to grant "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) to the Petitioner for appearing in the main examination to the post of Accounts Officer, Class-I. The Petitioner has also challenged letter dated 29.5.2023 issued by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No 4-GPSC, informing that the request of the Petitioner for grant of NOC, has been declined by his parent department i.e. Respondent No.2. It is also prayed that as per notice issued by Respondent No. 4 - GPSC dated 17.6.2023, the main examination for the post of Accounts Officer, Class-I is to be held on 21.8.2023, 23.8.2023, 25.8.2023 and therefore, the Petitioner may be permitted, during pendency of the present petition, to appear in the said examination.
3. Taking into account the urgency mentioned on behalf of the Petitioner, with the consent of learned advocate for the Respondent, the matter is taken up for hearing on 17.8.2023 and 18.8.2023.
Page 2 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined
4. The facts in brief are as under:
(i) By an order dated 27.10.2017, Petitioner came to be recruited as Accountant/Auditor -Class-III for a period of 5 years in fixed pay.
(ii) Subsequently, since the Petitioner was eligible, he appeared in examination for the post of Accounts Officer, Class-I, which was advertised pursuant to advertisement No. 25/2020-2021. Upon clearing the examination for the post of Accounts Officer, Class-I (for advertisement No.25/2020-2021), the Petitioner applied for grant of NOC from Respondent No.2
- Director, Accounts and Treasuries. The said NOC was for appearing in the interview wherein, the NOC was granted by the authority on 13.9.2021.
(iii) On completion of 5 years on fixed pay, an order dated 26.09.2022, was passed absorbing the Petitioner on regular pay scale w.e.f. 30.08.2022. This order was passed by the office of Accounts and Treasuries.
(iv) The NOC granted earlier by order dated 13.09.2021, was subsequently withdrawn by communication dated 20.04.2023, on the ground of pending FIR. In furtherance thereof, the Petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 8345 of 2023 Page 3 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined challenging withdrawal of NOC by order dated 20.04.2023, which is currently pending adjudication.
(v) Thereafter on 15.10.2022, Respondent No.4 - GPSC published an advertisement bearing No.21/2022-23, for recruitment of candidates on the post of Accounts Officer, Class-1, whereby, in Clause 12 of the said advertisement, it was provided that the candidates are to submit "NOC" as referred therein.
(vi) In between, the Petitioner was served with Suspension Order on 13.04.2023, on the ground of his involvement in communal disharmony, giving Jehadi education under the guise of coaching classes and challenging the law and order in the society by giving threats against the religious posts and being involved in other anti-national activities, and thereby violating Rule 3(1)(3) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. An FIR also came to be lodged against the Petitioner by one Matambhai Sagrambhai Munghva for the offences under Sections 447, 384, 506(2) and 120B of IPC on 20.04.2023.
(vii) On 11.05.2023, results of Preliminary Examination conducted on 05.02.2023 came to be declared by Respondent No.4 GPSC, inter-alia, provisionally qualifying the candidates Page 4 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined for appearing in Main written examination, subject to the fulfillment of all conditions mentioned in the aforesaid Advertisement bearing No.21/2022-23.
(viii) Petitioner addressed a letter to his parent department dated 17.5.2023, i.e. Respondent No.2 - Director of Accounts & Treasury, informing about his having filled up the form of examination and interview, while seeking NOC.
(ix) Respondent No.4 GPSC addressed a letter dated 25.05.2023, informing the Petitioner that the candidates who are in Government employment, are required to submit "No Objection Certificate" in the prescribed format in terms of Circular dated 08.11.1989 issued by the General Administration Department and to fill up the forms for the Mains examination (i.e., written examination) for the post of Accounts Officer, Class-1.
(x) In connection with the Petitioner's aforesaid letter dated 17.05.2023, Respondent No.1-State addressed a communication dated 29.05.2023 to Respondent No. 4- GPSC, informing that the request of the Petitioner for NOC, has been declined by his parent department i.e. Respondent No.2-Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries.
Page 5 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined
(xi) In view of the above letter dated 25.05.2023 of Respondent No.4 GPSC, the Petitioner made an application to Respondent No.2- Directorate of Accounts & Treasury for the grant of NOC to fill up the form for appearing in the Mains examination of Accounts Officer-Class-1.
(xii) Ultimately, the Respondent No.5 District Treasury Officer, Ahwa - Dang, addressed a communication dated 03.06.2023 to the Petitioner, refusing to grant NOC for appearing in the mains examination of GPSC for the post of Accounts Officer Class-1, on the ground that a FIR has been lodged against the Petitioner.
(xiii) The aforesaid communications dated 29.05.2023 and 03.06.2023 came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court by way of filing Civil Application No. 1 of 2023 in SCA No.8345 of 2023, wherein, the learned Single Judge passed an order rejecting the request for grant of NOC.
(xiv) Aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal bearing No.703 of 2023, wherein the learned Division Bench passed an order dated 7.6.2023, holding that the filing of the aforesaid civil application constitutes a separate cause of action and hence, the Petitioner is required Page 6 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined to file substantive petition.
(xv) In view of the above, the Petitioner filed the captioned writ petition, challenging the aforesaid communications dated 29.05.2023 and 03.06.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 1- State and Respondent No. 5-Directorate of Accounts & Treasury, respectively, for setting aside the same and seeking direction to the Respondent Authorities to grant NOC to the Petitioner for appearing in the mains examination for the post of Accounts Officer - Class-l, to be conducted by the Respondent No.4 - GPSC on 21.08.2023, 23.08.2023 and 25.08.2023.
5. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vinay Bairagra, learned advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
6. Mr. Shalin Mehta, Learned Senior Counsel made following submissions:
(i) That Government Resolution dated 8.11.1989 issued by Government of Gujarat, General Administration Department and subsequent modification of the Government Resolution dated 20.10.1992 is not applicable in case of the Petitioner since, the Page 7 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined said Government Resolution refers to the "candidate" for the post. In contrast thereto, Petitioner being an "applicant" as yet, who is to appear for the mains examination to be followed by the interview, he cannot be stated to be a "candidate" as referred in the Government Resolution dated 20.10.1992. He therefore submitted that though the Government Resolution dated 20.10.1992 provides for withholding of candidature of candidate in cases where FIR has been lodged, the said Government Resolution and its contents do not apply to the Petitioner.
(ii) Referring to the FIR, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that an absolute false FIR has been lodged against the Petitioner where direct involvement of the Petitioner is not even referred. The FIR has been lodged for a private dispute and, therefore, it does not have bearing on the application to be considered or the candidature to be considered for the post in question.
(iii) Referring to Annexure T Page 119, he submitted that a candidate having pending FIR has been considered for the post of Mamlatdar, Class-II and he has been called for interview by communication dated 21.1.2022. Therefore, discriminatory treatment cannot be given to the Petitioner.
Page 8 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined
(iv) Similarly, another candidate has been considered for the post of Taluka Development Officer by communication dated 6.1.2022. He, therefore, submitted that equal treatment is expected from the State, being a model employer.
(v) In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Ruhal vs. Delhi Police and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online Delhi 3351, wherein it is held that mere filing of an FIR would not be a ground for denial of the certificate and the contents of the FIR are to be seen. He reiterated that in this case, the Petitioner is only seeking permission to participate in the main examination and the same may not be denied.
(vi) As per settled law, purposive interpretation is to be given to the Government Resolutions / Circulars. In this case, if a purposive interpretation is not given to the Government Resolution dated 8.11.1989 and 20.10.1992, great prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner because in future, if the Petitioner succeeds in seeking getting the FIR quashed, an irreversible situation would have arisen by that point of time. As against that, if the Petitioner is permitted to participate in the mains examination provisionally, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents.
Page 9 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined
7. On the other hand, learned Advocate General made following submissions:
(i) There are different modes of interpretation of the circulars and generally the circulars of the Government are interpreted as per the understanding of the author. The circulars are not for internment but for giving purposive interpretation to retain the aim and object behind the said circular.
(ii) In support of his submissions, learned Advocate General relied upon the Government Resolution dated 8.11.1989 to submit that the entire Government Resolution is to be read in the context of the clauses which are referred therein. First and foremost, the post in question is for the candidates who are already in Government employment. Clause 3 of the said Government Resolution provides for informing the recruiting agency as early as possible in case of pendency of criminal prosecution or lodging of FIR. Clause 4 of the said Government Resolution refers to No Objection Certificate to be produced by the candidate before examination or interview. Learned Advocate General emphasized that such NOC is to be given, if the parent department has no objection for appointment of the candidate for the post in question. Clause 4 provides for NOC to be filled as per specimen given.Page 10 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined
(iii) Referring to Clause 3 i.e. format of NOC, Learned Advocate General submitted that the said clause refers to the Government candidate who had applied for the said post. He emphasized that Clause 3 categorically states that it is to be certified that the parent department has no objection if the application of the candidate is considered. Thus, it implies application of mind by the concerned authority and, therefore, once the applicant or candidate is having such antecedents, then grant of NOC as prayed for, would amount to non- application of mind by the authority who is to issue the NOC.
(iv) Further, referring to modified Government Resolution dated 20.10.1992, he submitted that only Clause 1 of para 2 has been modified and replaced wherein it provides for pending FIR against the candidate and in such cases the candidature is to be withheld. He thus, submitted that conjoint reading of paragraph 2, 3 read with 2(1) makes it amply clear that in cases of FIR lodged against the candidate, his candidature is to be withheld. This procedure is followed all over the state.
(iv) Further, the resolution dated 8.11.1989 and 20.10.1992 cast duty on the Respondents to give NOC after due application of mind. Most importantly, paragraph 2 of Clause 1 has undergone change whereas paragraphs 3 and 4 of 8.11.1989 has not undergone any change and consolidated Page 11 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined reading of all clauses, refers to non-grant of NOC in the circumstances stated therein.
(v) In the present case, on the date of seeking NOC, an FIR was already lodged against the Petitioner and, therefore, there is no illegality in not granting the NOC.
(vi) Mr. Trivedi, learned Advocate General further submitted that the entire circular refers to "applicant" and "candidate" time and again and there is no difference as contended by the Petitioner that till the applicant gets selected, he cannot be termed as candidate. Thus, reference made in the circular dated 8.11.1989 and 20.10.1992 of the words "applicant" and "candidate" are the same and, therefore, it is applicable to all the concerned who have applied for the post in question, including the Petitioner.
(vii) Referring to the communication dated 25.5.2023 by GPSC to the Petitioner, he submitted that under Clause 6, the NOC was called for as per the specimen prescribed. Further, the note below communication dated 25.5.2023 refers to non- submission of the document as called for, where NOC is one of the documents which to be uploaded on or before the particular date wherein it is stated that if the candidate fails in upholding the requisite document before the specified date, his Page 12 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined candidature will be cancelled. In other words, the distinguishing argument made by the Petitioner as "candidate" and "applicant" is of no consequence and it applies to every Government employee who has applied for the said post.
(viii) Learned Advocate General also submitted that as contended by Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, if the Government Resolution would not have been applicable, then the Petitioner would not have applied for grant of NOC.
(ix) Referring to his affidavit, learned Advocate General submitted that in terms of the resolution, the concerned department can raise objection against the candidature of the Government employee, which has been done in the present case and, therefore, there is no illegality. He reiterated that there is an FIR registered against the Petitioner and, therefore, in terms of sub-para (3) of para 1 and sub-para (1) of para 2 of the Resolution dated 8.11.1989 as amended by resolution dated 20.10.1992, the concerned department is empowered to raise the objection by communicating the same to Respondent No.4 - GPSC and, therefore, the actions of the Respondents are legal and valid in accordance with the resolution prevailing in the State.
(x) Against the contention of the contents of the FIR that it Page 13 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined is baseless and to be looked into by the Respondents, he submitted that neither the concerned department is authorised to verify the contents of the FIR nor the same is contemplated under Government Resolution dated 8.11.1989 and 20.10.1992.
(xi) Further, the said Government Resolution is followed across the State for all Government employees and there being no discrimination, there is no violation as alleged. In relation to the comparison made by the Petitioner against two officers whose cases have been considered pending FIR, he submitted that in both the cases, the facts were different and wrong relief claimed cannot be the ground to claim the relief prayed for.
(xii) Learned Advocate General relied upon the following submissions in support of his submissions:
(a) Letters Patent Appeal No.724 of 2023 and allied matter dated 11.8.2023.
(b) Special Civil Application No.12761 of 2016 with Special Civil Application No.16923 of 2016 dated 10.1.2017.
(c) Letters Patent Appeal No.329 of 2017 with allied matters dated 22.12.2017.
(d) Special Civil Application No.5999 of 2019 dated 3.3.2020.
(e) Union of India and Anr. vs. International Trading Co. and Page 14 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined Anr. reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437.
(f) Vikram Ruhal vs. Delhi Police and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online CAT 11.
8. Considered the submissions. Undisputed fact is that the Petitioner has been denied "No Objection Certificate" by office of Respondent No.5 - District Treasury Officer, Ahwa-Dang vide communication dated 03.06.2023, on the ground of pending FIR against him. For non-grant of NOC, the respondent No.-5 has relied on Government Resolution dated 20.10.1992. It is also not in dispute that FIR came to be lodged against the Petitioner on 20.04.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 384, 506(2) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, when the Petitioner sought for NOC as required under communication dated 30.05.2023 [Annexure "E" (Page 77-A)] from his parent department, FIR was pending against him.
8.1. It is noticed that by Government Resolution of General Administrative Department, State of Gujarat dated 20.10.1992, sub-para (1) of Para-2 of Circular dated 08.11.1989 has been substituted. In the substituted paragraph, it is provided that if a criminal offence is registered against an employee, then in order to stop a particular candidate from appearing in any examination of GPSC for the recruitment of GPSC/ promotion Page 15 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined to the higher post, parent department of the employee is to convey its objection to the Recruiting Agency (GPSC), within prescribed time, failing which, GPSC will assume that there is no objection against the consideration of the candidature of such an employee and GPSC will accordingly proceed with the further procedure.
8.2. Further, it cannot be ignored that sub-paras (3) and (4) of Para-1 of Government Resolution dated 08.11.1989, provides that if a criminal case is pending against the employee, then in that case, the same is to be intimated by the concerned department to the office undertaking recruitment. Therefore, in other words, at every stage, candidature is to be scrutinized particularly in relation to criminal proceedings pending against the applicant.
8.3 Most importantly, clause-1 of Government Resolution dated 20.10.1992, if read in its entirety, it provides that the government employee is free to apply directly for another employment in respondent State directly. However, the said information (filing of application) is to be informed to its parent department within seven days. If any officer/ employee is selected, then he is to be relieved as per Extant Rules. If the concerned Department is having any objection, then the same has to be intimated to the GPSC within a period of 30 days. In Page 16 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined the opinion of this Court, the period of 30 days provided to inform the recruiting agency (GPSC), referrers to the date of application. Thus hypothetically, if the petitioner had made an application on 07.06.2023, then the objection if any is to be intimated within 30 days of his application. Therefore, the contention raised that the Government Resolution dated 20.10.1992 does not apply to petitioner since he is not a "candidate" as yet, does not merit acceptance. Moreover, if the contention canvassed by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is accepted, the period of 30 days to raise objection would become redundant.
8.4. It is true that purposive interpretation is required to be given to the Circular. It is noticed that Government Resolution dated 20.10.1992 is only modification of one clause of Government Resolution dated 08.11.1989. The Government Resolution dated 08.11.1989, clause (3) & (4) refers to pending criminal proceedings against the government employee, which is there in case of the Petitioner. Further, Clause (4) provides for NOC. Therefore, bare reading of the said Government Resolution provides for taking cognizance of criminal proceedings if any, pending against the candidates and in such situation, withholding of such candidature is appropriate. Therefore, even if purposive interpretation is considered, in the opinion of this Court, it is intention of the author of the said Page 17 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined Government Resolution not to consider the candidature having pending FIR on the date of application.
8.5. It is true that if the Petitioner is not permitted to appear in the examination at this stage and in near future, he prefers an application seeking quashing of the said FIR and he succeeds, the situation would be irreversible and he loses his chance to compete with other candidates, despite having qualified for the said post. However, these are the circumstances by which the appointing authority shall not be compelled to consider the case despite having knowledge of criminal proceedings pending against him. In other words, allowing such prayer would amount to grant of NOC without application of mind by the authority, who is signing the NOC. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that if the contention to appear in the examination on the ground of prejudice caused to the candidate is considered, it would amount to allowing all candidates, who had cleared preliminary examination to appear and thereby entire Government Resolution dated 08.11.1989 and 20.10.1992 would become redundant. Additionally, the argument of the Petitioner succeeding in the quashing of FIR is based on happening or non-happening of a future event, which cannot be a ground to grant relief as prayed for as on date.
8.6. Further, in the case of Vikram Ruhal Vs. Delhi Police and Page 18 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined others reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 3351, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered to select the candidate provisionally as there are standing orders for provisionally selected candidates. In this case, there is no such policy that the State Government to consider the case of applicant, who has applied for the post in question to consider his case provisionally. In such situation, decision relied on by learned Senior Advocate for the applicant is not applicable.
8.7 In the decision relied upon by learned Advocate General that purposive interpretation is to be given to a Circular and Government Resolution, this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.724 of 2023 and other allied matters in the judgment dated 11.08.2023 has held that the first principle for interpretation or reading of Government Policy or Circular is that it should be read in whole and not in piecemeal so as to gather the intention of the authority, which has issued it. A policy document has to be read in whole to understand the scope and meaning of the clauses contained therein. The interpretation, if required, has to be purposive, in a manner that it gives effect to the policy guidelines formulated therein and not to frustrate it.
8.8 In the decision of this Court dated 10.01.2017 in Special Civil Application No.12761 of 2016 in relation to non-grant of Page 19 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined NOC, criminal case was pending against the petitioner and as the said facts were not disclosed by the petitioner, he was denied NOC. The Court in the said judgment, akin to the above fact situation referring to the very circular dated 08.11.1989 in Para-6, has observed as under:
"6. xxx xxx xxx This Court does not find requirement for any interference for the reasons that criminal proceedings are already pending. Government Resolution dated 08.11.1989 is very categorical and a conjoint reading of Rule 89 of GCSR Rules and GR dated 8.11.1989, clearly point out that the authority concerned issued 'no objection certificate' subject to the outcome of this petition. It also mentions under which circumstances, the authority concerned issued 'no objection certificate', as there are no departmental proceedings nor any outstanding dues. However, as there is pendency of criminal matter, the concerned department cannot be forced to give such a certificate."
8.9 Against the order dated 10.01.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.12761 of 2016, the learned Division Bench has not interfered and granted liberty to the petitioner to submit appropriate application in case the applicant is Page 20 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined acquitted.
8.10 In relation to submission canvassed by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that as others were permitted to appear in the examination and interview as referred in the petition, similar treatment is required to be given to the petitioner, otherwise it would amount to discrimination, is not acceptable in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Co. and Another reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437, wherein, it has been 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 thirty two vessels are concerned, but it cannot come to the aid of 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 Page 21 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11442/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined 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, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existance of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs or par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that wrong has been committed on some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality."
9. In view of the above and considering that the concept of negative equality cannot come to the benefit of the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the reliefs as prayed for are not liable to be acceded to. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) NAIR SMITA V. Page 22 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:41:17 IST 2023