Article 14 Does Not Envisage Negative Equality, Wrong Decisions Made In Earlier Cases Can't Be Perpetuated: Chhattisgarh High Court

A division bench of Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant observed:

"Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner."

The writ petitioners were appointed on 17.08.2021 to the post of Agriculture Teachers. At the time of appointment, the petitioners were pursuing Ph.D. courses and as a result of obtaining appointment, they could not pursue the Ph.D. course. A joint application dated 25.11.2021 was filed by the petitioners to allow them to pursue Ph.D. course and to grant leave without pay. The said representation was followed by other representations on the subject. As there was no response from the authorities, the petitioners approached Chhattisgarh High Court which dismissed the petition stating:

"Chapter-VI under Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 deals with Study Leave and Rule 42 also lays down the conditions for grant of Study Leave. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 42 creates a specific bar so far as Study Leave being granted to the probationers and also to those employees who have not completed 5 years of continuous service including the period of probation."

Petitioner submitted before Court that there are number of instances when the Government granted study leave even though the conditions enumerated under Rule 42(5) of the Rules of 2010 had not been fulfilled and therefore, the present petitioners are treated discriminatorily.

Court relied on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Basawaraj & Another v. Special Land Acquisition Office where it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect and thus, if some other similarly situated persons had been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well.

Placing reliance on the said case, the Court opined that there's no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and, accordingly dismissed the petition.