AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned final result dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure P-3) and detailed result Annexure P-5 for the post of Chargeman Mechanical (Category No. 16) to the extent of non-selection of the petitioner for the post under General Category; further a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the impugned speaking order dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure P-21) as the same is Illegal and against the admitted facts of the matter as the petitioner is duly eligible for the post in question; further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent-Commission to declare the petitioner eligible for the post in question in view of the educational qualifications and experience attained by the petitioner.
It is inter alia submitted by ld. counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to Advertisement No. 14/2019 dated 22.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent, petitioner had applied for post of Chargeman (Mechanical) in General Category. As documents submitted by the petitioner were in order, petitioner was allotted roll number and issued Admit Card.
Thereafter, petitioner had taken the written examinationin which petitioner has secured 44 marks. The result was declared on 20.05.2022 (Annexure P-3). However, name of the petitioner did not appear in the list despite high merit of the petitioner and vacant posts. Subsequently, corrigendum dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure P-4) was issued in the result, but name of petitioner was still not included. Then, detailed result (Annexure P-5) was announced, and petitioner's name was again omitted.
Ld. counsel contends that Advertisement No. 14/2019 requires 5 years' experience in relevant field but does not mention how experience is to be considered. It is pointed out that petitioner has experience in various fields, as evident from Annexures P-6 to P-14. However, the same has not been taken into account. Accordingly, petitioner had approached the Commission and was informed that his name was in the list of ineligible candidates as name of post is not mentioned in the Experience Certificate submitted by the petitioner.
Thereafter, petitioner had approached the companies where he had previously worked and requested them to provide certificate to the petitioner with the post name mentioned in it. Said Certificates dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-15) and 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-19) were duly provided to the petitioner by his previous employers; and petitioner had duly submitted the same to the Commission by way of representation.
As representation of the petitioner was still not decided, petitioner had filed CWP-22814-2022; which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-20) with a direction to the Commission to decide representation and pass speaking order. Vide impugned order dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure P-21), petitioner's representation has been rejected.
Ld. counsel contends that the impugned action of the respondents is discriminatory in nature, as in a similar case of one Rohtash s/o Nand Lal, Commission has accepted similar certificate as given to the petitioner. Thus, a different yardstick cannot be adopted in the case of the petitioner.
It is further submitted that as per RTI information dated 03.11.2022 (Annexure P-24) received by the petitioner, posts are still lying vacant as ESM posts are to be converted to General Category.
It is lastly submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, Jee 2004 (4) SCT page 546, has held that agency should not adopt hyper-technical attitude while considering documents.It is accordingly prayed that the present writ petition be allowed.
Per contra, ld. State counsel has opposed submissions of the petitioner and referred to submissions made by the respondent in para No. 6 of the reply to the effect that the Experience Certificates submitted by the petitioner could not be considered as name of post was not mentioned by the petitioner in the said Certificates. As regards case of Rohtash, ld. State counsel submits that Rohtash was appointed in pursuance to a court order.
No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
A perusal of the record of the case shows that the present matter pertains to the post of Chargeman Mechanical, Advt. No. 14/2019, Cat. No. 16. The essential qualification for the post in question is as under: -
"Essential Qualification:-
i)Matric with I.T.l. Certificate in Moulder/Turner/Fitter Trade along with five years experience in relevant field
ii) Six months certificate in Computer Applications
(iii)Hindi/Sanskrit as one of the subject in Matriculation or Higher."
The petitioner has contended that the respondents have disregarded the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner, whereas identical certificates submitted by Rohtash son of Nand Lal have been accepted to be valid and appointment has been given to him. However, the respondents have categorically stated that this contention of the petitioner is incorrect as the experience certificates of the petitioner and Rohtash are not identical as alleged by the petitioner. The details regarding experience certificates of petitioner and candidate Rohtash along with reason for considering/not considering the same has been given by the respondents as per chart reproduced below: -
(i) Details of Petitioner’s Experience:-
Period of Experience claimed. where experience e gained
Apprenticeship Certificate Trade
14.10.2002 01.04.2005 Fitter Enterprises to
30.09.2005 30.01.2009
Cannot be considered as name of post on which the petitioner has worked and attained experience is not mentioned. 4 Not Mentioned Sukhmaa Sons & 09.02.2010 11 months Cannot be considered as Associates to 20 days name of post on which 29.01.2011 the petitioner has worked and attained experience is not mentioned.
Cannot be considered as name of post on which the petitioner has worked and attained experience is not mentioned.
Cannot be considered as name of post on which the petitioner has worked and attained experience is not mentioned.
Cannot be considered as name of post on which the petitioner has worked and attained experience is not mentioned.
(ii) Details of Rohtash’s Experience:-
Post on which experience claimed Apprenticeship Certificate Trade Turner Not Mentioned
Cannot be considered as name of post on which the petitioner has worked and attained experience is not
mentioned. Cannot be considered as name of post on which the petitioner has worked and attained experience is not
mentioned. Considered आयुधिनमा�णीखम�रया, to months & जबलपुर, र�ामं�ालय, 18.09.2019 19 days भारतसरकार
Upon comparison of the certificates submitted by both the candidates, the respondents in their Additional Affidavit dated 31.10.2025filed in compliance of order dated 04.03.2025passed by the Court, have stated as follows:
“That from the details of experience certificates of petitioner and candidate Rohtash, it is clear that out of total 7 experience certificates of petitioner, only 2 certificate issued by Escort Ltd. Mathura Road Faridabad & R.N.VN. Enterprises, on post of Trade Fitter & Maintenance Fitter for the period 15.10.2001 to 14.10.2002 & 01.04.2005 to 30.09.2005 respectively are considerable which comes to total 1 year & 6 months experience whereas for being eligible for the post in question 5 years experience is required on the post of Moulder/Fitter/Turner, Further, the rest of certificates of petitioner cannot be considered because the name of post, on which the petitioner has claimed to work and attained experience, is not mentioned.
Further, regarding the experience certificates of candidate Rohtash, it is pertinent to mention here that out of total 4 experience certificates the 2 certificates cannot be considered for calculating experience because the name of post on which the candidate has claimed work experience, is not mentioned. However, experience certificate of candidate Rohtash for the period 27.08.2010 to 26.08.2011 from Hero Motocorp. Ltd. on the post of Trade Turner & 30.05.2014 to 18.09.2019 on the post of Line Mistry/ HS-2 from महा�ब�क, आयुधिनमा�णीखम�रया, जबलपुर, र�ामं�ालय, भारतसरकार are considerable and the total experiences is of 6 years, 3 Months and 19 Days. Therefore, as the candidate Rohatash has fulfilled 5 years of experience which is required for the post in question has rightly been considered for the post in question.
Further, it is relevant to mention here that the identical certificates as claimed by petitioner issued by Sukhmaa Sons and Associates and Kamal Enterprises have also not been considered as in case of Rohtash also because, the name of post on which petitioner and candidate namely Rohtash had claimed experiences was not mentioned on those certificates. Therefore, the claim of petitioner that on identical experience certificates the petitioner has been denied appointment whereas, other candidate Rohtash has been given appointment is wrong and incorrect hence, denied and the petitioner has not been considered rightly for the post in question for not fulfilling the condition of 5 years experience to be eligible for the post in question.
Further, if the present application filed by the petitioner is allowed then it will set the wrong precedent to other candidates whose candidature has not been considered on same ground by the respondent Commission. It is also pertinent to mention that the reply filed by the respondent Commission in present case and grounds mentioned therein for non selection of petitioner may also be considered reply to this application in addition to present affidavit.”
The petitioner has not been able to controvert the above said assertions of the respondents. It is therefore clear that the case of the petitioner and Rohtash are not comparable being on a different footing.
Even otherwise, even assuming for the sake of argument that certificates of Rohtash had been wrongly accepted by the respondents, the same would constitute no ground for repeating the same mistake in the case of the petitioner.Two wrongs do not make a right. There is no concept of negative parity. I am supported in my view by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar V. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, (SC): Law Finder Doc Id# 6532 wherein it is held that:-
“D. Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 Discrimination Equality - Wrong orders contrary to law The concept of equality envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority or Court is shown to have committed an illegality or irregularity in favour of an individual or group of individuals, others cannot claim similar benefits Two wrongs can never make a right.” XXXX
24.The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 (Article 14?) of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals others cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh and others v. NDMC and others, 1996(2) SCC 459: 1996(1) R.R.R. 563 held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed:
"Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination."
Again, in Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and others, 1997(1) SCC 35: 1997(1) RCR (Civil) 379 this Court considered the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution and reiterated its earlier position regarding the concept of equality holding:
"Suffice it to hold that the illegal allotment founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment made to some other persons wrongly, would not form a legal premise to ensure it to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such illegal order, nor could it be legalised. In other words, judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the illegalities. Thus considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents."
In State of Haryana and others v. Ram Kumar Mann, 1997(3) SCC 321: 1997(3) SCT 135 (SC) this Court observed:
"The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e., benefit of withdrawal of resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing mis appropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similarly circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? The answer is obviously "No". In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. As stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle him to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a right.”
In view of the factual and legal position noted above, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.