http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAM KUMAR MANN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Division Bench  of the  Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on 10.8.1984 in CWP No. 1154/84.      The admitted facts are the respondent, while working as a  Small  Pox  Supervisor  in  the  Health  Department,  had tendered his  resignation on  April 23,  1982 to contest the election as  a Member of the State Legislative Assembly. His resignation was  accepted on  May 18, 1982. He contested the election  but   was  defeated.   Thereafter,  he   filed  an application on  May 21,  1982 withdrawing  his  resignation. That was  dismissed. Consequently,  the respondent filed the aforesaid writ  petition in  the High  Court. The High Court observed that  since three  similarly situated  persons  had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious  discrimination   is  meted   out  to  equals  and similarly  circumstanced   without  any  rational  basis  or relationship in  that behalf.  The respondent  has no right, whatsoever and  cannot be  given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e.,  benefit of  withdrawal of resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious  discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an  employee, after  committing misappropriation of money,  is dismissed  from service  and subsequently that order is  withdrawn and  he is  reinstated into the service. Can a  similar circumstanced  person  claim  equality  under Section 14 for reinstatement? Answer is obviously ‘No’. In a converse case,  in the  first instance, one may be wrong but the wrong  order  cannot  be  the  foundation  for  claiming equality for  enforcement  of  the  same  order.  As  stated earlier  for  enforcement  of  the  same  order.  As  stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle lion  to  the  equality  treatment  for  enforcement thereof. A  wrong decision by the Government does not give a right decision  by the  Government does  not give a right to enforce the  wrong order  and claim  parity or equality. two wrongs can  never made  a right.  Under these circumstances, the High  Court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the  respondent by  a mandamus  by a  mandamus  with  all consequential benefits.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed.  But   in  the circumstances without costs.