Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4911 of 2006
PETITIONER:
National Institute of Technology,Jamshedpur & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/11/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15833 of 2004)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the
Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant against the
judgment of the learned Single Judge in a writ petition. The
respondent filed a writ petition for a direction to the appellant
to relieve him so that he would be in a position to pursue his
Ph.D course in Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (in
short ’IIT’).
The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The writ petitioner (respondent herein) is an Associate
Professor in Metallurgical Engineering Department of the
National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, the appellant
herein. According to the writ petition, the writ petitioner
submitted an application for admission in Quality
Improvement Programme (QIP) sponsored by AICTE through
Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. He was
selected for admission in IIT, Madras and was asked to appear
at that institution for completing pre-registration formalities.
According to the writ petition, though he made an application
to the appellant for relieving him to make the pre-registration
visit, he had been illegally and arbitrarily denied the
permission by the appellant. According to the writ petitioner,
the action of the appellant was unreasonable and was also
discriminatory. The appellant resisted the writ petition by
pointing out that according to the norms, if on relieving a
teacher to attend such a programme, the staff strength in that
department would go below 70 percent of the fixed capacity,
the permission was to be denied and if the writ petitioner was
to be relieved as sought for by him, the strength in that
department would be reduced to 6l.9% of the sanctioned
strength and it was in that situation that he was not accorded
permission to get himself registered for the course. It was also
submitted that even originally, while forwarding his
application, the writ petitioner had been informed that he
would be able to pursue his course only if he could be relieved
from the Institute and only if on his being relieved, the staff
strength would not be reduced below 70%. The plea of
discrimination was denied and it was submitted that the writ
petitioner was deliberately attempting to malign the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
department by raising the bogey of his being a member of a
Scheduled Caste and was trying even to blackmail the
authorities by threatening that he would commit suicide if he
was not relieved. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Though the learned Single Judge found that there was a
norm providing for refusal of permission to a teacher to go in
for such a course if the staff strength would be reduced below
70% yet it was observed that there was no consistency in that
regard and the norms were not followed in several cases.
Therefore, it would not be fair to deny such an opportunity.
The appellant preferred Letters Patent Appeal before the High
Court.
It was pointed out that pursuant to an administrative
decision dated 9.11.2003 by the Ministry of Human Resources
Development (in short the ’HRD’) the Board of Governors had
adopted the Leave Rules and Conduct Rules of the National
Institute of Technology for implementation in the institute.
Such decision was taken on the day the matter was heard by a
learned Single Judge and the orders were reserved. By the
time the learned Single Judge pronounced its judgment IIT,
Delhi Rules had already become operative and, therefore, no
member of the teaching staff could be relieved for such a
course, if the available strength of the staff gets reduced below
85%. To state differently, only quota of 15% could be
permitted for such a course.
The Division Bench held that though on principles it
would have agreed with the appellant’s stand that when the
norms prescribed that the strength should not be reduced
below 70% by relieving a teacher for a programme such a
teacher should not be relieved, yet it was held because the
norm was universally implemented. The learned Single Judge
was justified in his view.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that merely
because there may have been any lapse in the past, that could
not have been taken as a ground by the High Court to grant
relief to the respondent. It was further pointed out that the
respondent did not continue his programme as Ph.D. degree at
IIT, Madras after April, 2005. But as is evident from the letter
of IIT Madras, respondent had secured low grades in the three
subjects he had appeared and he had not attended the rest of
the course. It was pointed out that the respondent has
manipulated and fabricated documents to show that he was
being prevented by the functionaries of the appellant from
carrying on the study course. Respondent is also guilty,
according to him, of making false and biased allegations
against the functionaries of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that there is no reason as to why a different
yardstick was sought to be applied for the respondent. He was
the victim of machination. The respondent has clearly
established as to how and why it was not possible for him to
attend the course after April, 2005. It is submitted that the
appellant with mala fide intention has pursued the
respondent.
In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann
[1997 (3) SCC 321] this Court observed:
"The doctrine of discrimination is founded
upon existence of an enforceable right. He was
discriminated and denied equality as some
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
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 mis-
appropriation of money, is dismissed from
service and subsequently that order is
withdrawn and he is reinstated into the
service. Can a similarly Circumstanced person
claim equality under Section 14 for
Reinstatement? The 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, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to
entitle him to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof.
A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to
enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two
wrongs can never make a right". [See: State of Bihar and
others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another (2000) 9 SCC
94, Vikrama Shama Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(2006 (6) SCC 70), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Prem
Kumar Sharma and Ors. (2006 (7) SCALE 240), Ekta Shakti
Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (JT 2006 (6) SC
500), and South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Prem Kumar
Sharma and Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 2727).
Merely because in some cases the norms may not have
been followed that cannot be a ground to hold that departure
from norms should be continued. There are serious allegations
about respondent having manipulated and fabricated
documents to substantiate his stand. We need not go into
these allegations. But as has been fairly accepted by the
learned counsel for the respondent, there is no official
communication from IIT Madras to support the respondent’s
stand that he was asked by the authorities of the said institute
not to attend the programme. There should have been some
material to support the stand. Unfortunately, for the
respondent there is none. On the other hand admittedly after
April, 2005 the respondent had abandoned the programme. It
is also on record that the appellant notwithstanding these
facts had asked the respondent to report back to IIT, Madras
to continue studies in terms of High Court’s direction. But
that does not seem to have been done by the respondent.
The inevitable result is that the orders of the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court cannot
be maintained and are accordingly set aside. The appeal is
allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to
costs.