Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. One equitable relief sought by the appointees at the culmination of the hearing was that since the backlog upto date does not exceed the number of vacancies now available, the matter can be closed directing the fifth respondent to earmark the backlog among the vacancies in Ext.P15 notification and fill up the same without disturbing the appointments already made. We do not find any merit in this argument. When there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which has to prevail. Equity can only supplement the law when there is a gap in it, but it cannot supplant the law [See B.Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266]. In other words, the court cannot extend equity, if such extension of equity would amount to infraction of any provisions of the constitution and the laws. That apart, extension of the benefit W.A. No.628 of 2022 & con. cases claimed by the appointees would infringe the right to equality guaranteed to the petitioner, for even if she is selected and appointed in the subsequent selection process, she will not be entitled to the same rights as would be enjoyed by the appointees by virtue of their earlier appointments to the service.