# Jitendra Kumar and Ors v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 1091
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-07-26
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33260 of 2012
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-kumar-and-ors-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42559
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-
Appointment
of
post
of
U.P.
Rojgar
Guarantee Yojna-as per notification dt.
23.10.2008-Chapter Viii Para 8.1. minimum
qualification
is
post
graduate
with
computer awareness-must contention that
are M.A. under B.C. category be given
appointment
merely
with
B.
Tech
qualification-held-parity can be claimed
positive consideration two wrong can not
make one right-rightly not considered for
appointment-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-7
It is well settled that if a wrong has been
committed by the respondents in respect
to some other persons, that will not
provide a cause of action to claim parity
on the ground of equal treatment since
the equality in law under Article 14 is
applicable for claiming parity in respect
to legal and authorized acts. Two wrongs
will not make one right.
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

Case Law discussed:
(2010)1 SCC 422; (2010) 2 SCC 728; AIR 2000
SC 2306; AIR 2003 SC 3893; AIR 2004 SC
2303; AIR 2005 SC 5565; AIR 2006 SC 1142

## Text

2 All] Jitendra Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

1091
khasra no. 1203 area 1bigha 3 biswa and
khsra no. 1245/A area 1 bigha, situate in
quasba Baraut, District Baghpat.

18. The decree is for injunction in
respect of land of khasra no. 1245/A and
for eviction of the defendants in respect of
land of khasra no. 1203. The petitioners in
the writ petitions are claiming that their
shops having area of 8ft./31 ft. with a
sahan 8ft/15 ft. is on part of khasra no.
1203.

19. The contesting respondents are
probably
not
disputing
the
above
contention of the petitioners but in
paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit they
allege that the petitioners have not stated
anything as to how they have acquired
rights or possession over the said property
and that as per the Amin report dated
5.8.1983 they are not in possession of any
part of the said land.

20. In view of the above, it was
incumbent upon the courts below in
deciding the objections of the petitioners
to find out the nature of the rights of the
petitioners over the disputed part of the
property and as to whether their shops
form part of the suit land.

21. The courts below have not dealt
with any of the above aspects while
rejecting the objections.

22. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the matter requires reconsideration by
the executing court on merits of the
objections preferred by the petitioners
under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.

23. Accordingly, the impugned
orders dated 24.5.2012 and 29.5.2012are
quashed and the matter is remanded to the
executing court for fresh decision of the
objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC
in accordance with law as expeditiously
as possible preferably within a period of
six months from the date of production of
the certified copy of this order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33260 of 2012

Jitendra Kumar and Ors.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.M. Sahai, Sri R.Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri K.K. Chand

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-
Appointment
of
post
of
U.P.
Rojgar
Guarantee Yojna-as per notification dt.
23.10.2008-Chapter Viii Para 8.1. minimum
qualification
is
post
graduate
with
computer awareness-must contention that
are M.A. under B.C. category be given
appointment
merely
with
B.
Tech
qualification-held-parity can be claimed
positive consideration two wrong can not
make one right-rightly not considered for
appointment-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-7
It is well settled that if a wrong has been
committed by the respondents in respect
to some other persons, that will not
provide a cause of action to claim parity
on the ground of equal treatment since
the equality in law under Article 14 is
applicable for claiming parity in respect
to legal and authorized acts. Two wrongs
will not make one right.
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

Case Law discussed:
(2010)1 SCC 422; (2010) 2 SCC 728; AIR 2000
SC 2306; AIR 2003 SC 3893; AIR 2004 SC
2303; AIR 2005 SC 5565; AIR 2006 SC 1142

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.),

1. Heard Sri M.M.Sahai, learned
counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. Admittedly, petitioners do not
possess post graduate qualification as per
the scheme of U.P. Gramin Rajgar
Guarantee
Yojna,
amended
by
notification dated 23rd October, 2008.
Under Chapter 8, para 8.1 of aforesaid
scheme,
minimum
educational
qualification for appointment is post
graduate. Thereafter, since computer
awareness have been found to be
compulsory, therefore, certain decree
have been mentioned so as to be given
special
preference
but
minimum
educational qualification indisputably is
post graduate qualification.

3. In the present case, none of the
petitioners possess requisite minimum
qualification, therefore, in my view, they
have rightly been rejected by means of
impugned order .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
drew my attention to Annexure 14 to the
writ petition, which shows that one
Rakesh Ranjan, who possess only B.Tech.
qualification and belong to OBC category,
was appointed as Assistant Programme
Officer.

5. Be that as it may, it cannot be
doubted that if an illegal appointment has
been made by authorities concerned,
disobeying
the
provisions
providing
necessary
minimum
qualification,
petitioners do not get a right to claim
parity with such illegal act of the
respondents. In Union of India &
another Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal
& another (2010) 2 SCC 422, the Court
has gone to the extent that even if some
other persons similarly placed have been
absorbed, that cannot be a basis to grant a
relief by the Court which is otherwise
contrary to statute. In para 25 of
judgment, the Court said:

"Even assuming that the similarly
placed persons were ordered to be absorbed,
the same if done erroneously cannot become
the foundation for perpetuating further
illegality. If an appointment is made illegally
or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of
further appointment. An erroneous decision
cannot be permitted to perpetuate further
error to the detriment of the general welfare
of the public or a considerable section. This
has been the consistent approach of this
Court. However, we intend to refer to a latest
decision of this Court on this point in the
case of State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan
Singh and Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 65, the
relevant portion of which is extracted
hereinbelow:

"67. By now it is settled that the
guarantee
of
equality
before
law
enshrined in Article 14 is a positive
concept and it cannot be enforced by a
citizen or court in a negative manner. If
an illegality or irregularity has been
committed in favour of any individual or
a group of individuals or a wrong order
has been passed by a judicial forum,
others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
the higher or superior court for repeating
or multiplying the same irregularity or
illegality or for passing wrong order ..."

6. In State of Karnataka & others
Vs. Gadilingappa & others (2010) 2
2 All] Dr. Madan Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India and Ors.

1093
SCC 728, the Court reiterated that it is
well settled principal of law that even if a
mistake is committed in an earlier case,
the same cannot be allowed to be
perpetuated.

7. It is well settled that if a wrong has
been committed by the respondents in
respect to some other persons, that will not
provide a cause of action to claim parity on
the ground of equal treatment since the
equality in law under Article 14 is applicable
for claiming parity in respect to legal and
authorized acts. Two wrongs will not make
one right. The Apex Court in the case of
State of Bihar and others Vs. Kameshwar
Prasad Singh and another, AIR 2000 SC
2306; Union of India and another Vs.
International Trading Co. and another,
AIR 2003 SC 3983; Lalit Mohan Pandey
Vs. Pooran Singh and others, AIR 2004
SC 2303; M/s Anand Buttons Ltd. etc. Vs.
State of Haryana and others, AIR 2005
SC 5565; and Kastha Niwarak G. S. S.
Maryadit, Indore Vs. President, Indore
Development Authority, AIR 2006 SC
1142 has held that Article 14 has no
application in such cases.

8. In view of the aforesaid, I find no
merit in the writ petition.

9. Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34881 of 2011

Dr. Madan Kumar Bansal
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Rai, Sri Adarsh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Sri J.P. Singh, Miss
Seema Singh

Constitution of India, Art. 30- Minority
institution-declaration thereof-commission
without
considering
the
fact-whether
institution run and managed by minority
community-controlled by that particular
community-declaration
as
minority
institution-unsustainable-quashed.

Held: Para-21
In light of the said judgement of the
Division Bench and in view of Section 12 (2)
of
Act,
2004
which
provides
that
Commission for the purposes of discharging
its functions under this Act, shall have all
the powers of a civil court trying a suit. It
logically follows that Commission while
declaring the status of a institution to be a
minority institution shall not only consider
the material evidence relevant for the
purpose, but shall also pass a reasoned
order with reference to the evidence so
produced for coming to the conclusions that
institution
in
question
had
been
(a)
established by a minority community and
(b) had been run and managed by a
minority
community
since
its
establishment.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1968 SC 662; (2002) 8 SCC 481; AIR 1992
SC 1630; Special Appeal No. 903 of 2006

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard Sri B.N. Rai, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.P. Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
contesting
respondent no. 6 and learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Petitioner, before this Court, is the
life member of the the institution
established in the name and style of "Ram