Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of a claim by a former Small Pox Supervisor in the Health Department of Haryana who resigned to contest a State Legislative Assembly election. After losing, he sought to withdraw his resignation and return to service. The State rejected the withdrawal, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed reinstatement with consequential benefits after finding that three similarly situated persons had been allowed to withdraw resignations. The State appealed by special leave. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly invoked Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 to grant parity with erroneous orders. The respondent Ram Kumar Mann, while working as Small Pox Supervisor, tendered his resignation on 1982-04-23 to contest elections as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly. His resignation was accepted on 1982-05-18. He contested but was defeated. He then filed an application on 1982-05-21 to withdraw the resignation, which was dismissed. Aggrieved, he filed CWP No. 1154 of 1984 in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The High Court observed that three similarly situated persons had been granted the benefit of withdrawing their resignations and concluded that denial to the respondent violated Article 14, directing reinstatement by mandamus with all consequential benefits. The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning erroneous. It stated that Article 14 would apply only when there is invidious discrimination meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced persons without any rational basis. The respondent had no enforceable right to withdraw his resignation after it had been accepted. The fact that the State may have wrongly allowed three others to withdraw resignations did not create a legal right in his favour. The Court illustrated that if an employee who had committed misappropriation was dismissed and that dismissal was later withdrawn reinstating him, another similarly circumstanced employee could not claim equality for reinstatement. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order or claim parity or equality; two wrongs never make a right. The Court therefore held that the High Court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement by mandamus with consequential benefits. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's order was set aside without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality and Non-Discrimination - Article 14, Constitution of India, 1950 - No right to parity based on erroneous or illegal orders; two wrongs do not make a right - Employee resigned to contest election; resignation accepted; after defeat sought withdrawal and reinstatement; High Court allowed citing three similarly situated persons; Supreme Court held that Article 14 does not permit claim of equality with wrong relief, as no enforceable right existed; mandamus wrongly issued; appeal allowed and reinstatement direction set aside. Held that wrong decisions by Government do not create enforceable rights; two wrongs never make a right.
Issue of Consideration
Whether denial of withdrawal of resignation while granting relief to three similarly situated employees violated Article 14 of the Constitution and warranted a writ of mandamus for reinstatement.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; the High Court's direction to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits was set aside; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Article 14 does not permit parity based on erroneous orders
- two wrongs do not make a right
- enforceable right required for mandamus
- withdrawal of resignation after acceptance not a matter of right
