The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by a retired Assistant Teacher seeking promotion to Headmaster. The Court held that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality, rejecting the claim that other ineligible promotions conferred a legal right on the appellant despite his lack of required Post-Graduation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.298 of 2019 With
I.A.No.5906 of 2020
Maharaj Mahto, aged about 63 years Son of Late Ghanshyam Mahto, Resident of Vill-Binko, P.O.-Sonua, P.S. Sonua, Dist.-West Singhbhum, at present retired as Assistant Teacher, in Nationalized Middle School, Dewanbir, P.O. & P.S.-Sonua, Dist.-West Singhbhum
.... …. Appellant
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa & District-West Singhbhum
3. The District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa & District-West Singhbhum
4. The Area Education Officer, Manoharpur, P.O. & P.S.-Manoharpur, Dist.-West Singhbhum
5. Shri Ram Nath Mahto, at present posted as Headmaster, Middle School, Raikera, Manoharpur Block, Dist.-West Singhbhum, P.O. Manoharpur, P.S. Manoharpur
…… .…. Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------ For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, A.C to S.C(L&C)-I
------
ORAL JUDGMENT 06/Dated: 19.03.2021
The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for
the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality.
I.A.No.5906 of 2020
This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of
2
the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 13 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
Heard.
In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.
Accordingly, I.A.No.5906 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 13 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
L.P.A. No.298 of 2019
The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3061 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the writ Court has declined to interfere with the decision of the authority as contained in Memo No.1989 dated 31.07.2003 passed by the respondent no.3, whereby the claim of the writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Headmaster has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case required to be enumerated which reads as hereunder:-
The writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 16.02.1973 and has been granted matric trained scale w.e.f. 19.05.1973, intermediate trained scale w.e.f. 13.04.1983 and B.A. trained scale w.e.f. 09.03.1987.
The writ petitioner has been superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.09.2006.
The grievance of the writ petitioner is that junior to him has been granted promotion to the post of Headmaster, ignoring the claim of the writ
3
petitioner, as such, he has moved to this Court by filing the writ petition being CWJC No.613 of 1997(R). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.03.1997 giving liberty to the writ petitioner to file representation and direction upon the respondents to consider the representation.
As per the direction of this Court passed in CWJC No.613 of 1997(R), the respondents have considered the claim of the writ petitioner but rejected the aforesaid claim vide order dated 04.11.1997.
Being aggrieved with the same, the writ petitioner has filed second writ petition being CWJC No.3747 of 1999(R).
This Court vide order dated 11.07.2001 had directed the respondents to consider the claim of the writ petitioner, the operative part of the said order reads hereunder as:-
“I, therefore, dispose of this writ application with a direction to the respondents to see that if any person junior to the petitioner has been given promotion to the post of Headmaster ignoring the case of the petitioner then either steps may be taken for his reversion to the post which he was holding or a decision be taken for giving promotion to the petitioner to the post of Headmaster.”
The respondents shall comply the direction within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the matter has again been reconsidered for consideration of claim of the writ petitioner but the same has been rejected vide order dated 31.07.2003 which has been assailed in W.P.(S) No.3061 of 2006.
The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties as also finding no requisite qualification to hold the post of Headmaster and considering the principle that if any illegality has been committed, the same cannot be allowed to be continued as also the Article 14 does not envisage the negative
4
equality, has dismissed the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal.
3. Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that it is the case where the writ petitioner has been discriminated since the other similarly situated employees have been granted regular promotion to the post of Headmaster leaving apart the writ petitioner.
He further submits that even though, the writ petitioner is having no Post-Graduation in the concerned subject but since the persons already granted promotion were also having no Post-Graduation and as such, the right has been accrued for his promotion also.
4. Per contra , Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, learned A.C to S.C(L&C)-I appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that even accepting the fact that other persons have been granted promotion having no eligibility criteria does not mean that if illegality has been committed, the same will be allowed to be perpetuated.
It has been submitted that there is settled position of Law that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality and the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter has declined to interfere with the impugned decision, hence, the same requires no inference by this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.
6. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the writ petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court for his promotion to the post of Headmaster.
5
It is not in dispute that a Rule has been framed by the Erstwhile State of Bihar known as Bihar Government Primary School Teacher’s Promotion Rules, 1993 enacted in exercise of power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India implemented w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
The aforesaid statutory rule provides to have Post-Graduation to hold the post of Headmaster.
Admittedly herein, the writ petitioner during the relevant time was not having Post-Graduation, as such, his case was not considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster.
However, the writ petitioner has tried to make out a case that other similarly situated persons have been granted promotion, even though they were not having Post-Graduation.
7. The question which is to be considered by this Court herein is that if any illegality has been committed by the concerned respondent, can a right will be said to be accrued in favour of the concerned person who is having no educational qualification and further whether Article 14 envisages the negative equality.
8. So far as the issue no.1 is concerned, it is the settled position of Law that an employee is only entitled to hold the post if he is having the requisite qualification as under the statutory rule to which he governs.
Herein, it is the admitted position that the writ petitioner is covered with the Rule, 1993 which has been implemented w.e.f. 01.01.1986 contains a condition of minimum requisite qualification of Post-Graduation to hold the post of Headmaster.
It is further settled position of Law that if any employee will be allowed to continue with the post having no educational qualification as per the statutory rule, such recruitment/promotion dehors the rule and
6
such employee is not entitled to hold the said post.
Herein admittedly, the writ petitioner is having no Post-Graduation as required under the provision of Rule, 1993 which has been implemented w.e.f. 01.01.1986 of having no Post-Graduation, therefore, his case has not been considered and rightly not been considered since he is not having basic requisite qualification as per the statutory rule.
Further, the writ petitioner has tried to impress upon this Court that other co-employees have been granted promotion as Headmaster who were also not having Post-Graduation during the relevant time and on that ground he is making a case of violation of the principle laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
But it is the settled position of Law that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality rather it always envisages positive equality. Purpose is that, if Article 14 will be allowed to be considered in a case of wrong committed, the result would be that the illegality will be allowed to be continued and it is settled position of Law that illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated as has been held in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that if any illegality has been committed, the same is to be rectified the moment it came to the notice of the authorities and if such exercise would not be resorted, it will amount to perpetuating the illegality.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment, at paragraphs 56 and 57 has been pleased to hold:-
“ 56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. 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
7
same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K, Upendra Narayan Singh and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal.)
57. This principle also applies to judicial pronouncements. Once the court comes to the conclusion that a wrong order has been passed, it becomes the solemn duty of the court to rectify the mistake rather than perpetuate the same. While dealing with a similar issue, this Court in Hotel Balaji v. State of A.P. observed as under: (SCC p. 551, para 12) “12. … ‘2. … To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. In this, we derive comfort and strength from the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. Delameter at p. 18:
“a Judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible and, therefore, ever ready to learn: great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead: and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors”.
(See also Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, In re, Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. and Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan v. CBI.)
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750 , wherein at paragraph 32 it has been
laid down, which reads hereunder as:
Further, the Article 14 does not envisage negative equality which has already been rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Bihar &
Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., AIR 2000 Supreme Court
2306 , wherein at paragraph-30 it has been laid down hereunder as:-
8
“The concept of equality as envisaged under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India 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 other 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.”
Further, in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer , (2013) 14 SCC 81 , wherein at paragraph 8, which reads hereunder as:
"8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. 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 similarly wrong order. 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."
Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr
Vs. State of Punbaj & Ors, (2016) 6 SCC 532 at paragraph 16 held
hereunder as:
"16.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the other candidates were appointed in the post against dereserved category, the same benefit should also be extended to the appellants. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equalities. In State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma it was held as under:
"15.Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not
9
envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake."
9. This Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and considering the fact that the writ petitioner was not having Post-Graduation during the relevant time as required by way of mandatory minimum educational qualification under the Rule, 1993, comes to conclusion that, he is not having legal vested right to be promoted as Headmaster merely because the other persons have illegally been considered, otherwise the same will lead to perpetuating illegality. 10. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition cannot be faulted with, for the reason stated hereinabove.
11. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J . )
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Rohit/.A.F.R.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee can claim a legal right to promotion solely on the ground that other similarly situated persons were promoted despite lacking requisite educational qualifications?
Does Article 14 of the Constitution of India envisage negative equality to allow an employee to claim rights based on the State's failure to follow statutory rules in favor of others?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Mamata MohantyFollowed¶62
State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 · Who else cites this
Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit SinghReferred¶65
Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh
Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of DelhiReferred¶65
Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of HaryanaReferred¶65
Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana
K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P.Referred¶65
K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P.
Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&KReferred¶65
Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K
Upendra Narayan Singh and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra MondalReferred¶65
Upendra Narayan Singh and Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal
Hotel Balaji v. State of A.P.Explained¶68
Hotel Balaji v. State of A.P.
Union of India & Anr. v. Narendra SinghFollowed¶71
Union of India & Anr. v. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750 · Who else cites this
ICAR v. T.K. SuryanarayanReferred¶72
ICAR v. T.K. Suryanarayan
State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr.Followed¶74
State of Bihar & Anrs. Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2306 · Who else cites this
Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition OfficerFollowed¶77
Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 · Who else cites this
Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr Vs. State of Punbaj & OrsFollowed¶80
Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr Vs. State of Punbaj & Ors, (2016) 6 SCC 532 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. v. Rajkumar SharmaReferred¶84
State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma
Maharaj Mahto
The State of Jharkhand
The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, West Singhbhum
The District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum
The Area Education Officer, Manoharpur
Shri Ram Nath Mahto
Sujit Narayan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court