SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This order should be read in a continuation of our order dated 12.1.94. Pursuant to our order dated 12.1.94 a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. Annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit is annexure B, which was published in the newspaper on 19.8.1993. The case of the Respondents is that any person who was to appear for physical test on an earlier date was not allowed to appear on any subsequent date, if he had failed to appear on the date fixed for his physical test. By annexure B some relaxation was granted to the candidates only in the circumstances enumerated in annexure B which was issued in the following circumstances. It was brought to the notice of the authorities that some other examinations were also being held on the date fixed for physical test causing inconvenience to candidates who were to take both the tests. By annexure B it was notified that if an candidate find difficulty in appearing for the physical test on the date fixed, on account of the fact that he had to take any other examination on that date, he should seek permission of the Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned after producing before him material to show that he had to take some other examination on that date. Such requests were to be entertained only if they were made prior to the date on which the candidate was to appear for physical test. It has, therefore, been explained that the candidates whose particulars have been' given in the writ application, were candidates who had applied pursuant to annexure B, prior to the date on which they had to appear for physical test. Their requests were considered by the D.I.G. concerned and they were asked to appear for physical test on a subsequent date. The Petitioner had made no such request, and therefore there was no justification for permitting him to appear for physical test on any other date, since he failed to appear for physical test on the date fixed. It is, therefore, submitted that only in cases covered by annexure B, another , date was fixed for physical test. Any one who had failed to appear on the date fixed, or who had failed in the physical test earlier, was not allowed to appear again on any subsequent date. One or two instances have been mentioned in the counter affidavit where it was found that for no fault of the candidate, he could not take the physical test on the date specified. In these circumstances, in the interest of fairness, they were subjected to physical test on a subsequent date.

(3.) We are satisfied that there has been no arbitrariness in the matter. It is true that there may be instance where the rules may have been violated. If such instances are brought to the notice of this Court, perhaps this Court may pass appropriate orders. However, it cannot be urged as a matter of law that if the principles have been violated in some cases, Article 14 commands the State to violate those principles in all cases. Articles 14 cannot be enforced in the reverse gear, so as to perpetuate illegality. This is well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court, and it has been consistently held that where discrimination is alleged on the ground that some have been prevented while others have been permitted to do a thing illegally, the Court must quash the illegal, part of the action, and must not perpetuate illegality by giving similar illegal benefit to others. Having regard to the facts brought to our notice, we are satisfied that the Petitioner has not made out any case for commanding the Respondents to subject him to physical test on any other date, since he could not appear on the date fixed for his physical test.