Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. The third submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner regarding discrimination vis-a-vis three candidates named hereinabove who were promoted with similar ACR gradings as the Petitioner, is equally bereft of merit. We find that none of the candidates whose cases have been referred to by the Petitioner, were selected in the Selection process which is in question. No reliance, therefore, can be placed on those cases, which pertain to a different selection process even otherwise, each selection is based on a comparative assessment of the merit of the candidates being considered in that selection process. The Petitioner cannot claim that merely because candidates with similar profile as his were selected in a subsequent or prior selection, he has any vested right to be selected, since the selection is based on comparative merit of the candidates falling within the zone of consideration. We also find force in the submission of the counsel for the Respondent that, even if-hypothetically, it is accepted that any person was wrongly given promotion, the Petitioner cannot claim relief by introducing the concept of negative equality. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. kameshwar [2000] 9 SCC 94. In this decision the Supreme Court reiterated the well settled principle that the concept of equality is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner Para 30 of this decision reads as under:-