AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard learned Counsel Mr. B.K. Acharya for the Petitioner and Mr. Ravi Karnavat for the Respondent.
2 This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 399 of 2007.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondent is not granting him seniority from the date he was declared unfit till the date he was given alternative appointment.
The facts are that the Petitioner was selected for the post of Apprentice. In medical examination, he was found unfit as his eye sight was not according to the standard fixed by the Respondent. The Petitioner claimed that he may be given some alternative employment. Ultimately, on 7.2.2005, the Petitioner''s representation was considered and he was given alternative employment as Apprentice Diesel Mechanic (Grade-III). It took four years in providing alternative employment to the Petitioner.
The Petitioner preferred Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that his seniority should be counted from the date he was declared unfit by the Medical Board and the Respondents have committed illegality in not mentioning the name of the Petitioner in the registered maintained by them.
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, if the name of the Petitioner would have been mentioned in the register maintained by them, he would have been given seniority as were given to other persons.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record an order of Mohd. Arman Ansari, wherein he was given seniority.
One illegality cannot mean that further illegality be committed by the Respondents. The observation of the Tribunal in para 11 of the judgment is extracted below:
Except for one Shri Mohd. Arman Ansari the remaining persons against initial recruitment were medically decategorised in 1999. Shri Mohd. Arman Ansari, who had been found unfit for the post of diesel assistant, has been offered appointment in 1998. The copy of order appointing him is given to SC/ST association. Was he a person belonging to SC/ST? The same is not clear from the record? Before placing reliance on another case it has to be seen that the benefit had been properly extended. It is well settled that illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated.
It is well settled by the Hon''ble Apex Court that, ''wrong order or decision does not entitle other party to claim benefit of it'', as held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and Others, paragraphs 11 and 12 of which are extracted below:
The Respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. 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 wrong order. A wrong order/ decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible. (Vide Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. v. Union of India, Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India).
Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the Petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, Yogesh kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi, Union of India v. International Trading Co., Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. And Krishan Bhatt v. State of J and K).
In our opinion, the Petitioner''s seniority has to be counted from the date he was appointed as Apprentice Diesel Mechanic (Grade-III) and not from the earlier date when he was declared medically unfit.
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.