RADHA Vs. DIVISIONAL EMPLOYMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had to her credit temporary service under R.9 (a) (1) of the general rules, during the period from 25-3-75 to 21-6-75, 12-7-76 to 11-10-76, 16-1-82 to 13-7-82. All these three spells do not even constitute one years service. Really it is having only 360 days. The petitioner is claiming benefit of Ext. P6 and Ext. P6 (a) Govt. circular wherein Govt. ordered that physically handicapped persons who had worked for one year at any time during 1.1.68 to 5.1.84 can be considered for rendering the benefit of the Govt. orders referred to in Ext. P6(a) and for reappointment in service. The petitioner submits that the petitioner does not come within Ext. P6(a) as she does have one years service. Her case come squarely within the ambit of Ext. P12 judgment, the case referred to therein and also Ext. P13 orders passed in terms of the said judgment. Ofcourse in Ext. P12 judgment the case of the persons who did not have one years service has been directed to be considered. This Court in that judgment found that, that petitioner "may not come strictly within the provisions of the orders passed in regard to the provisional employees who are physically handicapped," Inspite of that this court observed that "that petitioner deserves a sympathetic consideration". That too was because "in a similar matter the Govt. considered the case sympathetically". Now the sympathy has to be extended unendlessly, the petitioner submits. If that is the course action to be adopted, necessarily the persons who really deserves sympathy while finding place in the rank list prepared by the Public Service Commission and Waiting in the queue before the office of the PSC may have to be denied not only sympathy, but also legal entitlement.

(2.) The concept of equality under Art.14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority or court is shown to have committed an illegality or irregularity in favour of an individual or group of individuals, they cannot claim similar benefits. Two wrongs can never make right. It has been held so by apex court in a recent decision in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad (2000 Supreme Court Online (S.O.L.) Case No. 302, (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2000) : JT 2000 (5)SC 389 ).

(3.) Therefore the petitioner cannot seek reappointment in terms of Ext. P6(a) or orders referred to therein.