Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAM KUMAR MANN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/02/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court,
made on 10.8.1984 in CWP No. 1154/84.
The admitted facts are the respondent, while working as
a Small Pox Supervisor in the Health Department, had
tendered his resignation on April 23, 1982 to contest the
election as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly. His
resignation was accepted on May 18, 1982. He contested the
election but was defeated. Thereafter, he filed an
application on May 21, 1982 withdrawing his resignation.
That was dismissed. Consequently, the respondent filed the
aforesaid writ petition in the High Court. The High Court
observed that since three 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 misappropriation
of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that
order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service.
Can a similar circumstanced person claim equality under
Section 14 for reinstatement? 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 for enforcement of the same order. As stated
earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to
entitle lion to the equality treatment for enforcement
thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a
right decision by the Government does not give a right to
enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. two
wrongs can never made a right. Under these circumstances,
the High Court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement
of the respondent by a mandamus by a mandamus with all
consequential benefits.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
The appeal is accordingly allowed. But in the
circumstances without costs.