Holding

A wrong administrative order cannot be the foundation for a claim of equality under Article 14, and mere non‑uniform application of a norm does not justify granting relief.

Summary

The respondent, an associate professor at NIT Jamshedpur, applied for admission to a Quality Improvement Programme at IIT Madras and sought leave from the institute. The institute denied permission, citing a rule that staff strength in the department could not fall below 70% upon relieving a teacher. A Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the norm had not been uniformly applied in other cases, and the High Court upheld that decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a wrong administrative order cannot form the basis for a claim of equality under Article 14, and that inconsistency in applying a norm does not justify granting relief, especially in view of allegations that the respondent fabricated documents and abandoned the programme. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the lower courts and allowed the appeal without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the denial of leave to the respondent, based on the staff‑strength norm, amounts to arbitrary discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the inconsistent application of the same norm in other cases can be a ground to set aside the denial of leave.
Whether a wrong administrative order can be the foundation for claiming equality under Article 14.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

Service lawArticle 14EqualityAdministrative lawQuality Improvement ProgrammeStaff strength normWrong orderDiscriminationHigher education

Judgment

A NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, JAMSHEDPUR AND ORS.
v.
CHANDRASHEKHARCHAUDHARY

NOVEMBER 13, 2006

B [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.]

Service Law:

Relieving from duty-for purusing Quality Improvement Programme-
C Associate Professor--Permission denied by Institute-On the ground that if
he were relieved, the staff strength would be reduced by the specified
percentage as per the norms of the Institute-Writ Petition challenging the
denial-Single Judge as well as Division Bench held the denial not fair as
the norms were not followed in several cases-Teacher had also abandoned
D the programme after some time-Also did not attend the same despite
permission from the Institute-On appeal, held: Merely beacuse in some
cases norms are not followed, cannot be a ground to permit continuation of
such departure.

Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Claim for parity/equality-
£ Held: A wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for
enforcement of the same order.

Respondent was an Associate Professor in appellant-Institute.
Respondent applied for Quality Improvement Programme through the Institute.
He was selected for admission in llT, Madras. When he applied for being
F relieved, to make the pre-registration visit, he was denied the permission. He
filed Writ Petition alleging that the permission was illegally and arbitrarily
denied to him. Case of the Institute was that according to the norms, such
permission could not be granted, if the staff strength in that department would
go below 70%.
G Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition holding that since the norm was
not followed in several cases, it would not be fair to deny, such an opportunity
to the respondent. In Letters Patent Appeal, Division Bench of High Court
upheld the decision of Single Judge. Hence the present appeal.

H 1102
~·
.. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. JAMSHEDPUR v. CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHAIJDHARY
1103

Allowing the appeal, the Court A
HELD: 1. The wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality
for enforcement of the same order. Respondent's right must be founded upon

• enforceable right to entitle him to the equal treatment for enforcement thereof.
A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong
order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a right. B
(1106-E-F)
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann, (19971 3 SCC 321,
relied on.
State of Bihar and Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Anr., 12000) 9
sec 94; Vikrama Shama Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2006) 6 c
sec 70; South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. Prem Kumar Sharma and Ors., (2006)
7 SCALE 240; Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, JT
(2006) 6 SC 500 and South Eastern Coalfield Ltd v. Prem Kumar Sharma
and Ors., AIR (2006) SC 2727, referred to.

2. Merely because in some cases the norms may not have been followed D
that cannot be a ground to hold that departure from norms should be continued.
There are serious allegations about respondent having manipulated and
fabricated documents to substantive his stand. There is no official
communication from HT Madras to support the respondent's stand that he
was asked by the authorities of the appellant-institute not to attend the
E
programme. There should have been some material to support the stand. On
the other hand admittedly after April, 2005 the respondent had abandoned
the programme. It is also on record that the appellant notwithstanding these
facts had asked the respondent to report back to IIT, Madras to conlinue
studies in terms of High Court's direction. But that does not seem to have
been done by the respondent. [1106-G-H; 1107-A-B) F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4911 of2006.
' From the final Judgment and Order dated 13-5-2004 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Letters Patent Appeal No.14 7/2004.
G
Punit Dutt Tyagi for the Appellant.

Mahabir Singh, Binay K. Das, Rakesh Dahiya and Anil Kumar Jha for
the Respondent.

H
~
'"-.~ ...
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered· by a Division
Ben.ch of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed
B by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in a writ (
petition. The respondent filed a writ petition for a direction to the appellant
to relieve him so that he would be in a position to pursue his Ph.D course
in Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (in short 'UT').

The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
c
The writ petitioner (respondent herein) is an Associate Professor in
Metallurgical Engineering Department of the National Institute of Technology,
Jamshedpur, the appellant herein. According to the writ petition, the writ
petitioner submitted an application for admission in Quality Improvement
Programme (QIP) sponsored by AICTE through Regional Institute of
D Technology, Jamshedpur. He was selected for admission in IIT, Madras and
was asked to appear at that institution for completing pre-registration
formalities. According to the writ petition, though he made an· application to
the appellant for relieving him to make the pre-registration visit, he had been
illegally and arbitrarily denied the permission by the appellant. According to
E the writ petitioner, the action of the appellant was unreasonable and was also
discriminatory. The appellant resisted the writ petition by pointing out that
according to the norms, if on relieving a teacher to attend such a programme,
the staff strength in that department would go below 70 per cent of the fixed
capacity, the permission was to be denied and ifthe writ petitioner was to be
relieved as sought for by him, the strength in that department would be
F reduced to 61.9% of the sanctioned strength and it was in that situation that
he was not accorded permission to get himself registered for the course. It
was also submitted that even originally, while forwarding hi<; application, the
\
writ petitioner had been informed that he would be rble to pursue his course
only if he could be relieved from the Institute and only if on his being
G relieved, the staff strength would not be reduced below 70%. The plea of
discrimination was denied and it was submitted that the writ petitioner was
deliberately attempting to malign the department by raising the bogey of his
being a member ef a Scheduled Caste and was trying even to black.mail the
authorities by threatening that he would commit suicide if he was not relieved.
The writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
H
I
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. JAMSHEDPUR v. CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHAUDHARY IPASAYAT. J.j 1105

Though the learned Single Judge found that there was a norm providing A
for refusal of permission to a teacher to go in for such a course if the staff
strength would be reduced below 70% yet it was observed that there was no
consistency L1 that regard and the norms were not followed in several cases.
Therefore, it would not be fair to deny such an opportunity. The appellant
preferred Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court.
B
It was pointed out that pursuant to an administrative decision dated
9.11.2003 by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (in short the
'HRD') the Board of Governors had adopted the Leave Rules and Conduct
Rules of the National Institute of Technology for implementation in the
institute. Such decision was taken on the day the matter was heard by a C
learned Single Judge and the orders were reserved. By the time the learned
Single Judge pronounced its judgment IIT, Delhi Rules had already become
operative and, therefore, no member of the teaching staff could be relieved
for such a course, if the available strength of the staff gets reduced below
85%. To state differently, only quota of 15% could be permitted for such a
c~mrse.
D

The Division Bench held that though on principles it would have agreed
with the appellant's stand that when the norms prescribed that the strength
should not be reduced below 70% by relieving a teacher for a programme
such a teacher should not be relieved, yet it was held because the norm was E
not universally implemented. The learned Single Judge was justified in his
view.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that merely because there
may have been any lapse in the past, that could not have been taken as a
ground by the High Court to grant relief to the respondent. It was further F
pointed out that the respondent did not continue his programme as Ph.D.
degree at UT, Madras after April, 2005. But as is evident from the letter of
IIT Madras, respondent had secured low grades in the three subjects he had
appeared and he had not attended the rest of the course. It was pointed out
that the respondent has manipulated and fabricated documents to show that
he was being prevented by the functionaries of the appellant from carrying G
on the study course. Respondent is also guilty, according to him, of making
false and biased allegations against the functionaries of the appellant.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that
. there is no reason as to why a different yardstick was sought to be applied H
for the respondent. He was the victim of machination. The respondent has
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A clearly established as to how and why it was not possible for him to attend
the course after April, 2005. It is submitted that the appellant with mala fide
intention has pursued the respondent.

In State ofHaryana& Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann, [1997] 3 SCC 321
this Court observed:
B /
"The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an
enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some
similarly situated persofl:S 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
c 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 mis-appropriation
D of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is
withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similarly
Circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for
Reinstatement? The answer is obviously "No".

In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but the
E wrong order cai:inot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement
of the same order. As stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable
right to entitle him to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong
deci~fon by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order
and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a right". [See: State
p of Bihar and Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Anr., l2000] 9 SCC 94,
Vikrama Shama Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2006] 6 SCC 70,
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Prem Kumar Sharma and Ors., [2006] 7
SCALE 240, Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, JT .,
(2006) 6 SC 500, and South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. Prem Kumar Sharma '
G and Ors., AIR (2006) SC 2727).

Merely because in some cases the norms may not have been followed
that cannot be a ground to hold that departure from norms should be continued.
There are serious allegations about respondent having manipulated and
fabricated documents to substantiate his stand. We need not go into these
H allegations. But as has been fairly accepted by the learned counsel for the
respondent, there is no official communication from IIT Madras to support the

I
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. JAMSHEDPUR v. CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHAUDHARY iPASAYAT. J.J 1107

respondent, there is no official communication from IIT Madras to support the A
respondent's stand that he was asked by the authorities of the said institute
not to attend the programme. There should have been some material to
support the stand. Unfortunately, for the respondent there is none. On the
other hand admittedly after April, 2005 the respondent had abandoned the
programme. It is also on record that the appellant notwithstanding these facts B
had asked the respondent to report back to IIT, Madras to continue studies
in terms of High Court's direction. But that does not seem to have been done
by the respondent.

The inevitable result is that the orders of the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be maintained and are accordingly C
set aside. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order
as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.