ORDER

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 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. (Vide: Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 705, M/s. Anand Button Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 565; K.K.Bhalla v. State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 898; and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 1937)."

8. In the case of Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Government of NCT of D