Rajendra Singh Negi and ors. Vs. National Capital Territory - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
administrative tribunals act - section 19 -- challenge to denial of appointment to the post of technical assistant -- cancellation of selection on the ground that diploma certificate possessed by petitioner was not from an institute recognized by the government of nct -- government earlier appointing some persons from the same institution -- held that two wrongs cannot make one right -- wrong decision of government does not give right to a party to enforce such a decision -- writ petition challenging the order of tribunal dismissing the petition, affirmed. - - aggrieved by the stance, so taken, they approached the central administrative tribunal but without success. under these circumstances, the high court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a mandamus with all consequential benefits.rekha sharma, j.1. the petitioners, namely, rajendra singh negi, shambhu nath and dushyant kumar garg, after passing senior secondary examination, i.e, 10+2, did one year diploma course in operation theatre technology from institute of health and hygiene, mahipalpur, delhi. in the year 2002, the `times of india' carried an advertisement from the government of nct of delhi, ministry of health and family welfare, inviting applications for recruitment to 10 posts of technical assistants grade ii and 22 posts of technical assistants grade iv falling in the description of para-medical staff. the petitioners applied for the jobs and were successful too. however, before they could receive actual letters of appointment, they ran out of luck. they were informed by the govt. of nct vide its communication dated 4th june, 2003 that their selection was provisional and that on scrutiny of their applications, they were found ineligible as the diploma certificate which they possessed was not from an institute recognised by the govt. of nct, delhi. aggrieved by the stance, so taken, they approached the central administrative tribunal but without success. hence, this writ petition praying for quashing of communication dated 4th june, 2003, a direction for the issuance of letters of appointment for treating the diploma course done by them to be of a recognised institution and to grant them consequential benefits, such as, arrears of salary, seniority, promotion etc. along with their other batch-mates.2. are they entitled to the reliefs claimed?3. the govt. of nct of delhi states that the posts in question are governed by recruitment rules and that so far as the petitioners are concerned, one of the qualifications for the post of `technical assistants group iv' is diploma in mlt from a recognised institution, and as regards the post of `technical assistants grade ii', the requirement is operation room assistants course from a recognised institution. the authority to give recognition to such diploma courses, it is alleged, is the board of technical education, new delhi or all india council for technical education, new delhi (aicte). it further says that the institute of public health and hygiene, mahipalpur, delhi, from where the petitioners have done their diploma course is neither recognised by the board of technical education, nor by the aicte. hence, the petitioners are ineligible for appointments.4. it is not disputed by the petitioners before us nor was it disputed before the central administrative tribunal that the posts in question are governed by the recruitment rules and that the rules provide for qualification as stated above. the petitioners based their claim not on any express recognition of their diploma course by the board of technical education or by aicte but on the strength of certificate of diploma issued to one of them, namely, dushyant kumar garg by the institute of public health and hygiene. as per the certificate, the institute of public health and hygiene is recognised/approved by the central government and several state governments. it is on this claim of the institute as is found recorded on the certificate that the petitioners have contended that their course should be treated as from a recognised institute.5. we do not agree.6. in our view, the certificate issued to shri dushyant kumar garg is a self serving document. it is the institute itself which is proclaiming that it has been recognised by the central and state governments. the central and state governments must also say so, which is not the case. the petitioners did place on record documents showing recognition of the course conducted by the institute of public health and hygiene by state governments of jammu and kashmir and sikkim, but nothing was shown to establish that the institute has also been recognised by the govt. of nct, delhi, for it is under the said government that the petitioners are seeking employment. on the other hand, the learned counsel representing the govt. of nct, delhi placed before us a directory containing names of the approved institutions for 'under graduate programme in engineering and technology (diploma) issued by the all india council for technical education. the directory contains the names of only four institutions which have been approved for para-medical courses. they are :-names and courses1. aditya institute of tech, 318 a, chirag delhi, new delhi. computer engineering, electronics and comm. engg., medical lab. technology2. baba haridas college of pharmacy and tech. new delhi. medical lab. technology3. govt. women polytechnic, new delhi. architectural assistantship, electronics and elect. comm. engg. fashion design and medical lab technology4. women's polytechnic, meera bai polytechnic, new delhi. architectural assistantship, beauty culture, commercial art, electronics and comm. engg., interior design and library scienceapparently, the name of the institute of public health and hygiene does not figure in the directory.7. we shall, however be failing in our duty if we do not refer to document annexure p-6 at page 97 of the petition. it is in the nature of a brochure or call it a booklet, providing guidelines to the students looking forward to joining some vocational courses. the publication is from the govt. of nct and contains a `foreword' written by the director (employment). it does contain the name of the institute of public health and hygiene from where the petitioners have done their diploma as one such institute.8. it was argued and with vehemence, that the booklet itself was an indication to the effect that the said institution had won and received recognition of the govt. of nct, delhi. we tend to disagree. it is a guide book making reference to different vocational courses indicating also the institutions which cater to the students intending to pursue any of those courses. it does not and cannot be taken to mean or imply that the govt. of nct, delhi, had thereby recognised those institutions for the purposes of offering employment. for that, as already noticed above, the persons seeking employment have to fulfill the conditions as already referred to by us in one of the preceding paragraphs.9. it was also argued that the government of nct, delhi, had earlier appointed persons having the same qualifications as those of the petitioners and from the same institutions. that it is so was not denied. we were told that the govt. of nct was looking into the matter and was contemplating appropriate action with regard to those persons who were appointed without fulfilling the requisite qualification. be that as it may, one wrong will not make another right. illegality, if so, committed would not provide a sound basis for commission of another illegality. there has to be a legal right and it is that which is missing. reference in support may be made to a judgment of the apex court in the state of haryana and ors. v. ravi kumar mann reported in : (1997)iillj1039sc , wherein it was observed:10. 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 the 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 i withdraw and he is reinstated into the service. can a similarly circumstanced person claim equality under section 14 for rein statement? 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 partly or equality. two wrongs can never make a right. under these circumstances, the high court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a mandamus with all consequential benefits.11. we respectfully follow the dictum.12. it was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that in similar petitions before single judges, notices had been issued and for that reason, we should stay our hands. we do not know on what basis and grounds those notices have been issued. those petitions are not before us. in any case, mere issuance of notices by learned single judges, with respect, does not come in our way to proceed with the matter. each case is an island unto itself.13. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to hold that the petition is devoid of force and that it calls for dismissal. we order accordingly.