Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)Chaman Lal vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 May, 2014
In Chama Lal v. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 15 SCC
715, it was held:
Basawaraj & Anr vs Spl.Laq Officer on 22 August, 2013
"16. More so, it is also settled legal proposition that Article
14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong
benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or
otherwise, it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to
others. This court in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer,
(2013) 14 SCC 81 considered this issue and held as under
Ashok Lenka vs Rishi Dikshit & Ors on 21 April, 2006
It is settled law that the clarification is explanatory
and/or clarificatory and will have a retrospective effect (see S B
Chatterjee v SD Majumdar, 2007 10 SCC 513, and Ashok Lenka v
Rishi Dikshit, 2006 9 SCC 90). On examination of the educational
qualification provided in the rules vis a vis the clarification issued
under Annexure A/6, it cannot be said that the respondents have
imposed any additional qualification through Annexure A/6. By
applying the law quoted above this being a clarification is bound to
take place w.e.f. the date of issue of new amended rules i.e.
01.06.2011. Thus the stand taken by the applicant does not hold any
water enabling this Tribunal to interfere on this count. The next
submission of learned counsel for the applicant that in similar
circumstances clarification was sought from the headquarter who
upon examination of the position clarified that higher qualification of
B. Tech in Mechanical Engineering can be considered for 2 years
early assessment promotion in term of Para 2.3.4 of Revised MANAS,
based on which persons having B Tech qualification got the benefit
whereas without any basis the authority concerned has taken a U-
Turn by issuing Annexure A/6 which is discriminatory and violative
of provision of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. It is settled
law that Article 14 of Constitution of India is not meant to perpetuate
illegality of fraud even by extending the wrong decision taken in one
case.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Kuljit Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 7 April, 2010
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. [Vide Chandigarh Admn. V. Jagjit Singh, (1995)
1 SCC 745, Anand Buttons Ltd. V. State of Haryana, (2005)
9 SCC 164, K. K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., (2006) 3 SCC 581
and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455.]"
1