‘Equality Cannot Be Claimed In Illegality, Cannot Be Enforced By A Citizen Or Court In A Negative Manner’: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has upheld the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (RRVPNL)'s decision to not select a candidate on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in TSP (General) category as he could not produce Special TSP (Tribal Sub-Plan Area) Certificate at the time of furnishing the application form or during the verification of documents.The candidate claimed parity with two other candidates, who were in possession of their Special TSP Certificates at the time of verification of documents and were selected and appointed onJustice Anoop Kumar Dhand said it is well settled proposition of law that no negative equality can be claimed as a matter of right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. "Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not meant to perpetuate illegality even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. If any wrong is committed by the authorities in similar matters, it cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. Equality cannot be claimed in illegality and, therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner," said the court.The petitioner submitted an application for participation in the selection process for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer–I (Electrical) in pursuance to advertised posts. However, he was not appointed on the post on the ground that he did not provide Special TSP Certificate as per circular dated September 9, 2013 issued by Rajasthan Government.The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents were not having any authority to withhold appointment of the petitioner on the technical reason that the Special TSP Certificate was not produced by him at the time of submitting the Application Form as no such condition was mentioned in Clause 10 of the Advertisement that the candidate must possess Special TSP Certificate at the time of submission of the Application Form.It was further submitted that there were several candidates - names of two were specifically mentioned, who were also not having the requisite Certificate and even then their candidature was considered and they were given appointment.On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per the Circular dated September 09, 2013, the petitioner was supposed to furnish Special TSP Certificate at the time of furnishing the Application Form. It was further contended that the other two candidates have not been impleaded as party respondents.The court noted that the circular dated September 09, 2013 indicates that the candidates seeking appointment in TSP Area are required to possess Special Bonafide Resident Certificate of TSP Area and a format of such Special Bonafide has been attached to the Circular.It further observed that as per Clause 10(vi) and (xii) of the said advertisement, the candidates must possess the Certificate of TSP, if he/she belongs to TSP Area and such TSP Certificate must be issued by the Competent Authority if such candidates are bonafide residents of any one of the notified TSP Areas of Rajasthan.“This fact is also not in dispute that though the petitioner was in possession of TSP Certificate at the time of submission of Application Form but he was not possessing Special TSP Certificate at the relevant time. The petitioner got this Special TSP Certificate on 07.10.2015. The petitioner has failed to submit his Special TSP Certificate even at the time of verification of the documents,” it added.The court noted the other two candidates were in possession of their Special TSP Certificates at the time of verification of documents and on the basis of these requisite Certificates, they were selected and appointed vide order dated February 05, 2015, while the petitioner has secured the Special TSP Certificate on October 07, 2015.The question before the Court was whether the petitioner can claim negative parity with the above two persons?The Court relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in R. Muthukumar & Ors v. The Chairman And Managing Director TANGEDCO & Ors 2022 SCC Online SC 151; Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 and The State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati 2019 SCC Online SC 1207 in which it was held that no negative equality can be claimed as a matter of right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the court held that the petitioner cannot claim negative parity with the other two candidates. It also said that the petitioner is trying to take benefit of the example of similarly situated persons without impleading them as party to the writ petition.“The petitioner has failed to produce the requisite Special TSP Certificate at the time of verification of documents. In absence of this Certificate, it cannot be said that the action of respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner is in any manner vitiated,” the court held.Case Title: Shivam Sharma v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & 3 OrsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj)...

‘Equality Cannot Be Claimed In Illegality, Cannot Be Enforced By A Citizen Or Court In A Negative Manner’: Rajasthan High Court

Udit Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Udit Singh

‘Equality Cannot Be Claimed In Illegality, Cannot Be Enforced By A Citizen Or Court In A Negative Manner’: Rajasthan High Court

Udit Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Udit Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers