IMPORTANT POINT
A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — Constitution of India — Article 14 — Claim for appointment on ground that petitioner was land loser — High Court held that since land of respondent had been acquired he was entitled to compensatory appointment — Appeal — Recommendation and guidelines for employment to land losers were that acquired area should be 3 acres of non-irrigated land or 2 acres of irrigated land — Acquired land of respondent was much less under recommendation, he was not entitled to any relief — Respondent could not claim appointment on ground that some others similarly placed were given appointment — Benefits extended to some persons in irregular or illegal manner could not be claimed on a plea of equality under Article 14 of Constitution.
Held : A bare perusal of the recommendations and the guidelines make the position clear that acquired area should be 3 acres of non-irrigated land or 2 acres of irrigated land. Because the acquired area is much less under the recommendation/guidelines, respondent was not entitled to any relief. The other question is as to whether the respondent No. 1 was entitled to be appointed on the ground that some others have been appointed. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 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 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. In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh & Ors. v. NDMC & Ors. [1996 (2) SCC 459] 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.(Paras 9 and 10)
Above being the legal position, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were not justified in giving impugned directions. Their orders are accordingly set aside.(Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.

2. Appellant calls in question legality of judgment rendered by a Division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench. Background facts leading to filing of the appeal are as follows :

3. Respondent No.1 – Prem Kumar Sharma filed a writ Petition before the High Court claiming appointment on the ground that he was a land loser. High Court by its order dated 8.8.2001 directed consideration by the sub-Divisional Officer. Since the sub-Divisional officer held that he was entitled to employment, a writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court. The High Court held that since the land of the respondent No. 1 had been acquired, he was entitled for compensatory appointment. The High Court gave the following directions:

"The petitioner is directed to extend the employment to the son/defendant as the case may be of respondent no.3, within a period of twelve months from today, on availability of first vacancy with the petitioner.

In case no vacancy arises within the period, the petitioner shall create a post for the employment, in this regard."

4. Questioning correctness of the judgment, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court modified the direction to the following extent:

"On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we direct the petitioner to consider the case of respondent No. 3 Prem Kumar Sharma for the employment to his son/dependent as the case may be whenever the vacancy arises."

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entitlement to employment of a person whose land has been acquired is governed by the guidelines dated 22.12.1984. The approved recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, evolving uniform guidelines for employment to the land losers stipulated that the person concerned should have lost either 3 acres of non-irrigated land or 2 acres of irrigated land. Admittedly, the total land acquired in the case of respondent No.1 is .72 decimal which the respondent No. 1 originally owned along with 10 others. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief and the High Court should not have given the directions as done.

6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the norms fixed have not been uniformly followed and in several cases acquisitions were for lesser extents of land and they have been given employment. Several instances have been highlighted. The appellant has filed affidavits indicating as to how those cases were not similar.

7. The guidelines which are undisputedly applicable read as follows:

"The Government had earlier constituted a Committee to consider evolution of uniform guide-lines for providing employment to land-losers. The committee had submitted its report and the same has now been accepted by the Govt. subject to one amendment vide letter No. 55011/14/83-PIR/CP Dated 17th November, 1984. Copy enclosed. The approved uniform guideline is annexed with this letter. You are requested to kindly ensure that these guidelines are implemented in your company."

8. In the approved recommendations of the Committee constituted by Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Deptt. of Coal evolving Uniform Guidelines for employment to the land losers, it has been inter alia stated as follows:

...................

"(i)The standard norm should be one employment for 3 acres of non-irrigated land and 2 acres of irrigated land. The practice ECL should be brought at par with the practice in the other 3 Companies.

(ii)However, if the land loser being considered for employment is a matriculate or above, the norm may be reduced to 2 acres per person if he opts to join initially as an apprentice for a period of 2 years during which he may be paid a fixed stipend per month. His regulation will subsequently, be governed by the normal rules

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 639

IMPORTANT POINTA wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality.