“after Hearing the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1090716
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-20-2013
Appellant“after Hearing the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
RespondentState of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
cwp no.10122 of 1992 -1- in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh cwp no.10122 of 1992 date of decision:20.09.2013 smt.harbans kaur .....petitioner versus state of punjab & others .....respondents coram : hon'ble mr.justice g.s.sandhawalia present: mr.madan mohan, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.rajinder goel, addl.a.g., punjab. ***** g.s.sandhawalia j.(oral) 1. the present writ petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 11.06.1990 (annexure p13) whereby the services of the petitioner as craft teacher were dispensed with by the administrator, panchayat samiti, talwara-respondent no.4. the ground was that the petitioner was not having the qualifications for appointment as per the provisions of section 115 read with section 34 of the punjab panchayat samitis & zila parishad act, 1961 read with rule 3 of the punjab panchayat samitis & zila parishad servants (punishment & appeal) rules, 1964. the said order was upheld in appeal by the deputy commissioner, hoshiarpur and further by the commissioner, jalandhar division on 26.03.1991 (annexure p14) and 02.12.1991 (annexure p15) respectively.2. a perusal of the writ petition would show that initially, the petitioner was employed as a craft teacher for 89 days basis on 30.05.1984 and the period was extended from time to time. thereafter, a recommendation was made for regularizing services of the petitioner by the sailesh ranjan 2013.10.05 11:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.10122 of 1992 -2- district development & panchayat officer, member and convenor, district election committee, hoshiarpur. in pursuance to that, the appointment letter was issued on 10.06.1985 and she was appointed as craft teacher in the pay scale of `450-`800 and her services were to be governed by the panchayat samiti & zila parishad service rules, 1965 (for short, the rules). show cause notice dated 15.12.1987 (annexure p8/a) was served upon her on the ground that the academic qualification submitted by the petitioner was found to be forged and her explanation was called for and the same was considered and after giving one months' notice, her services were terminated on 21.12.1988. the said order was set aside by the commissioner, jalandhar division on 01.08.1989 on the ground that since rule 3 had been violated and the allegation was different from the one that was contained in the show cause notice dated 15.12.1987. thereafter, the petitioner was again chargesheeted on 10.11.1989 (annexure p11/a) on the ground that she did not possess the requisite qualification of a craft teacher, as prescribed under the rules and that the certificates produced by her were bogus and were not issued by any recognized institute. it was further alleged that she had put the panchayat samiti to financial loss. after holding an enquiry, the said allegations were substantiated and accordingly, the dismissal order came to be passed on 11.06.1990 (annexure p13) which has been upheld before the appellate authorities.3. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the certificates were never forged and that similarly situated employee is continuing to work as a craft teacher in dasuya block. reliance has been made to paragraph no.17 of the writ petition, to which, there is no denial in the written statement filed. sailesh ranjan 2013.10.05 11:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.10122 of 1992 -3- 4. while issuing notice of motion, the division bench passed the following order on 29.07.1992: “after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the detailed orders passed by the original as well as the appellate authority, we are prima facie of the view that the petitioner does not possess the qualifications requisite for the post from a recognised institution. however, in para 17 of the writ petition, it has been specifically averred that one mrs.palwinder kaur also acquired the same qualification as the petitioner from the lucky ladies handicraft industrial society ltd., gurdaspur and she is also working as crafts teacher under the respondents in dasuha block. in this situation, the impugned action is discriminatory. notice of motion for 16.06.1992.”. 5. after hearing counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the submission made. admittedly, as per the rules, a craft teacher was to be a middle pass and with two years diploma course or one year's certificate and one year's teachers training course, from a recognized institute. the relevant rule reads as under: “sr. category scale method of qualifications no.of post of pay recruitment middle pass and must have 29. craft qualified as craft teacher teacher rs.180-250 by direct with two years diploma recruitment course or one year's certificate and one year teacher's training course from a recognised institute.”. 6. the authorities below, after due enquiry, have come to the conclusion that the certificates furnished by the petitioner were not issued by duly recognized institutes and therefore, she was held ineligible to hold the said post. counsel for the petitioner also could not deny this fact. the only submission made was that similarly situated person, namely, parminder sailesh ranjan 2013.10.05 11:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.10122 of 1992 -4- kaur, continued to work and therefore, the action was discriminatory.7. it is settled that article 14 of the constitution of india is not to be read in a negative sense that if somebody else is ineligible and continues holding the post, then the other ineligible employee is also entitled to continue. the apex court in union of india & others vs. m.k.sarkar 2010 (1) rsj589repelled such a submission and held as under:“13. learned counsel for the respondent lastly submitted that one k.v. kasturi who had retired in 1973, was granted the benefit of exercising the option by an order dated 19.9.1994, and therefore, principles of equality and equal opportunity required that the railways should give him the option. the chairman of railway board, while rejecting the respondents' representation by order dated 15.5.2004 has clarified that k.v. kasturi's case was similar to that of d.r.r. shastri as he had also not been informed of the availability of option. there is another angle to the issue. if someone has been wrongly extended a benefit, that cannot be cited as a precedent for claiming similar benefit by others. this court in a series of decisions has held that guarantee of equality before law under article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner; and that if any illegality or irregularity is committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction on courts for perpetuating the same irregularity or illegality in their favour also, on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegaly extended to others. see : chandigarh administration vs. jagdish singh - 1995 (1) scc745 gursharan singh & ors. vs. new delhi municipal committee & ors. - 1996 (2) scc459 faridabad c.t. scan centre vs. director general, health services - 1997 (7) scc752 state of haryana vs. ram kumar mann - 1997 (3) scc321 state of bihar & ors. vs. kameshwar prasad singh & anr. - 2000 (9) scc94and union of india vs. international trading company- 2003 (5) scc437 a claim on the basis of guarantee of equality, by reference to someone similarly sailesh ranjan 2013.10.05 11:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.10122 of 1992 -5- placed, is permissible only when the person similarly placed has been lawfully granted a relief and the person claiming relief is also lawfully entitled for the same. on the other hand, where a benefit was illegally or irregularly extended to someone else, a person who is not extended a similar illegal benefit cannot approach a court for extension of a similar illegal benefit. if such a request is accepted, it would amount to perpetuating the irregularity. when a person is refused a benefit to which he is not entitled, he cannot approach the court and claim that benefit on the ground that someone else has been illegally extended such benefit. if he wants, he can challenge the benefit illegally granted to others. the fact that someone who may be not entitled to the relief has been given relief illegally is not a ground to grant relief to a person who is not entitled to the relief.”. 8. the petitioner was to be given employment as per the rules. once it has been found by the authorities concurrently that the petitioner was not eligible and after following proper procedure and after giving due opportunity of hearing and holding of enquiry, her services were dispensed with. the allegations made in the chargesheet had been substantiated. there is no scope for interference under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india. writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 20.09.2013 (g.s.sandhawalia) sailesh judge sailesh ranjan 2013.10.05 11:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CWP No.10122 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10122 of 1992 Date of decision:20.09.2013 Smt.Harbans Kaur .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Madan Mohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajinder Goel, Addl.A.G., Punjab. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 11.06.1990 (Annexure P13) whereby the services of the petitioner as Craft Teacher were dispensed with by the Administrator, Panchayat Samiti, Talwara-respondent No.4. The ground was that the petitioner was not having the qualifications for appointment as per the provisions of Section 115 read with Section 34 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishad Act, 1961 read with Rule 3 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishad Servants (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1964. The said order was upheld in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur and further by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division on 26.03.1991 (Annexure P14) and 02.12.1991 (Annexure P15) respectively.

2. A perusal of the writ petition would show that initially, the petitioner was employed as a Craft Teacher for 89 days basis on 30.05.1984 and the period was extended from time to time. Thereafter, a recommendation was made for regularizing services of the petitioner by the Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.05 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.10122 of 1992 -2- District Development & Panchayat Officer, Member and Convenor, District Election Committee, Hoshiarpur. In pursuance to that, the appointment letter was issued on 10.06.1985 and she was appointed as Craft Teacher in the pay scale of `450-`800 and her services were to be governed by the Panchayat Samiti & Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1965 (for short, the Rules). Show cause notice dated 15.12.1987 (Annexure P8/A) was served upon her on the ground that the academic qualification submitted by the petitioner was found to be forged and her explanation was called for and the same was considered and after giving one months' notice, her services were terminated on 21.12.1988. The said order was set aside by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division on 01.08.1989 on the ground that since Rule 3 had been violated and the allegation was different from the one that was contained in the show cause notice dated 15.12.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner was again chargesheeted on 10.11.1989 (Annexure P11/A) on the ground that she did not possess the requisite qualification of a Craft Teacher, as prescribed under the Rules and that the certificates produced by her were bogus and were not issued by any recognized institute. It was further alleged that she had put the Panchayat Samiti to financial loss. After holding an enquiry, the said allegations were substantiated and accordingly, the dismissal order came to be passed on 11.06.1990 (Annexure P13) which has been upheld before the appellate authorities.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the certificates were never forged and that similarly situated employee is continuing to work as a Craft Teacher in Dasuya Block. Reliance has been made to paragraph No.17 of the writ petition, to which, there is no denial in the written statement filed. Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.05 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.10122 of 1992 -3- 4. While issuing notice of motion, the Division Bench passed the following order on 29.07.1992: “After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the detailed orders passed by the original as well as the Appellate Authority, we are prima facie of the view that the petitioner does not possess the qualifications requisite for the post from a recognised institution. However, in para 17 of the writ petition, it has been specifically averred that one Mrs.Palwinder Kaur also acquired the same qualification as the petitioner from the Lucky Ladies Handicraft Industrial Society Ltd., Gurdaspur and she is also working as Crafts Teacher under the respondents in Dasuha Block. In this situation, the impugned action is discriminatory. Notice of motion for 16.06.1992.”. 5. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the submission made. Admittedly, as per the Rules, a Craft Teacher was to be a Middle pass and with two years diploma course or one year's certificate and one year's teachers training course, from a recognized institute. The relevant rule reads as under: “Sr. Category Scale Method of Qualifications No.of post of pay recruitment Middle pass and must have 29. Craft qualified as craft teacher Teacher Rs.180-250 By direct with two years diploma recruitment course or one year's certificate and one year Teacher's training course from a recognised Institute.”. 6. The authorities below, after due enquiry, have come to the conclusion that the certificates furnished by the petitioner were not issued by duly recognized institutes and therefore, she was held ineligible to hold the said post. Counsel for the petitioner also could not deny this fact. The only submission made was that similarly situated person, namely, Parminder Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.05 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.10122 of 1992 -4- Kaur, continued to work and therefore, the action was discriminatory.

7. It is settled that Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to be read in a negative sense that if somebody else is ineligible and continues holding the post, then the other ineligible employee is also entitled to continue. The Apex Court in Union of India & others Vs. M.K.Sarkar 2010 (1) RSJ589repelled such a submission and held as under:

“13. Learned counsel for the respondent lastly submitted that one K.V. Kasturi who had retired in 1973, was granted the benefit of exercising the option by an order dated 19.9.1994, and therefore, principles of equality and equal opportunity required that the Railways should give him the option. The Chairman of Railway Board, while rejecting the respondents' representation by order dated 15.5.2004 has clarified that K.V. Kasturi's case was similar to that of D.R.R. Shastri as he had also not been informed of the availability of option. There is another angle to the issue. If someone has been wrongly extended a benefit, that cannot be cited as a precedent for claiming similar benefit by others. This court in a series of decisions has held that guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner; and that if any illegality or irregularity is committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction on courts for perpetuating the same irregularity or illegality in their favour also, on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegaly extended to others. See : Chandigarh Administration Vs. Jagdish Singh - 1995 (1) SCC745 Gursharan Singh & Ors. vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors. - 1996 (2) SCC459 Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre Vs. Director General, Health Services - 1997 (7) SCC752 State of Haryana Vs. Ram Kumar Mann - 1997 (3) SCC321 State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr. - 2000 (9) SCC94and Union of India Vs. International Trading Company- 2003 (5) SCC437 A claim on the basis of guarantee of equality, by reference to someone similarly Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.05 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.10122 of 1992 -5- placed, is permissible only when the person similarly placed has been lawfully granted a relief and the person claiming relief is also lawfully entitled for the same. On the other hand, where a benefit was illegally or irregularly extended to someone else, a person who is not extended a similar illegal benefit cannot approach a court for extension of a similar illegal benefit. If such a request is accepted, it would amount to perpetuating the irregularity. When a person is refused a benefit to which he is not entitled, he cannot approach the court and claim that benefit on the ground that someone else has been illegally extended such benefit. If he wants, he can challenge the benefit illegally granted to others. The fact that someone who may be not entitled to the relief has been given relief illegally is not a ground to grant relief to a person who is not entitled to the relief.”. 8. The petitioner was to be given employment as per the rules. Once it has been found by the authorities concurrently that the petitioner was not eligible and after following proper procedure and after giving due opportunity of hearing and holding of enquiry, her services were dispensed with. The allegations made in the chargesheet had been substantiated. There is no scope for interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 20.09.2013 (G.S.Sandhawalia) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh Ranjan 2013.10.05 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document