Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
C. Mohanraj & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P.No. 30639 of 2015 & M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015
Decided On : 23-06-2022
For the Petitioners:V. Tamizhanban, M/S. Kriish Law Associates, Advocates. For the Respondents:Anand Gopalan, M/S. T.S. Gopalan & Co, Advocates.
An irregularity or illegality cannot be a ground to claim equality or discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that an irregularity in appointment cannot be continued in perpetuity and suitable actions should be initiated to rectify the same.
Headnote:
Contract Labourers - Absorption in Regular Vacancy - B.P.No.44, dated 06.09.2007 - The court discussed the principles of equality and illegality in the context of appointment and absorption of contract labourers. It referred to various judgments to establish that an irregularity or illegality cannot be a ground to claim equality or discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court held that even if some ineligible candidates were absorbed, it does not entitle other ineligible candidates to claim the same benefit. The court emphasized that an irregularity in appointment cannot be continued in perpetuity and suitable actions should be initiated to rectify the same.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners, who were engaged as Contract Labourers, sought to be absorbed in a sanctioned post in the time scale of pay after serving for more than 10 years. Their claim for appointment was rejected by the respondents, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not eligible for appointment to a sanctioned post, in accordance with the board proceedings issued in B.P.No.44, dated 06.09.2007. It held that the principles of equality and illegality cannot be invoked to claim the same benefit as some other similarly situated persons who were inadvertently or mistakenly granted relief.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, who were not found eligible for appointment to a sanctioned post, were entitled to be absorbed in a regular vacancy despite the irregularity in the appointment of some other candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that an irregularity or illegality cannot be a ground to claim equality or discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized that an irregularity in appointment cannot be continued in perpetuity and suitable actions should be initiated to rectify the same.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed by the court, and no costs were imposed. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought as they were found ineligible for appointment to a sanctioned post, in accordance with the relevant board proceedings.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the order in Letter No. 053139/G.58/G.582/2009-3 dated 25.06.2012 and quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to regularly absorb the petitioners in the service of the respondent Corporation TANGEDCO and appoint the petitioners as Mazdoor notionally with retrospective effect from 12.02.2009 with all consequential benefits.)
1. The order of rejection dated 25.06.2012, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners to absorb in a sanctioned post in the time scale of pay, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioners were engaged as Contract Labourers in the office of the second respondent-TANGEDCO. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that they served as Contract Labourers for more than 10 years and therefore, they are entitled to be absorbed in a sanctioned post in the time scale of pay.
3. It is contended that the respondents agreed to absorb 6,000 casual labourers out of 21,600 contract labourers under 12(3) Settlement and board proceedings was also issued in B.P.No.44, dated 06.09.2007 to absorb the contract labourers in regular vacancy. When the board also considered that the contract labourers shall be absorbed in a regular vacancy, the case of the writ petitioners were denied. The representation sent to the respondents in this regard was also rejected and thus, the writ petitioners are constrained to move this writ petition.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents objected the contention of the writ petitioners by stating that, no doubt the board has taken a policy decision to absorb the contract labourers in a regular vacancy. However, such absorptions are to be made strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions issued in B.P.No.44, dated 06.09.2007. The eligibility qualification and other criteria, as contemplated under the board proceedings, were verified and the respondents found that the petitioners were not eligible for absorption in a regular vacancy and accordingly, their claim for appointment was rejected. The case of the eligible persons alone was considered and those candidates were permanently absorbed.
5. The petitioners now state that few ineligible candidates were also absorbed by the board and therefore, the said benefit is to be extended to the petitioners.
6. Question arises whether any irregularity or illegality occurred in a matter of appointment and such irregularity or illegality can be cited as a precedent for the purpose of securing appointment in public services.
7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basawaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in(2013) 14 SCC 81, wherein it was held as follows:-
"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 an
