Holding

A voluntarily tendered resignation that has been accepted does not create an enforceable right to withdraw it, and denial of such withdrawal does not constitute invidious discrimination under Article 14.

Summary

The respondent, a Smallpox Supervisor in the Haryana Health Department, resigned to contest state assembly elections and his resignation was accepted. After losing the election, he applied to withdraw his resignation, but the application was rejected, leading him to file a writ petition. The Punjab & Haryana High Court reinstated him, holding that the refusal to allow withdrawal violated Article 14 because three similarly situated employees had been permitted to withdraw theirs. The Supreme Court examined whether a voluntarily tendered and accepted resignation creates an enforceable right to later withdraw it and whether denial of such withdrawal amounts to invidious discrimination under Article 14. It held that no enforceable right existed once the resignation was accepted, and a wrong governmental decision cannot be the basis for a claim of equality. Consequently, the Court found the High Court's decision erroneous and set it aside, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the refusal to allow the respondent to withdraw his voluntarily accepted resignation violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether a person who has tendered a resignation that has been accepted retains any right to withdraw it and claim reinstatement.
Whether the doctrine of equality applies when the relief sought is based on a wrong governmental order.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

service lawresignationwithdrawal of resignationArticle 14equalitydiscriminationreinstatementpublic serviceelection

Judgment

-(
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. A
v.

-
RAM KUMAR MANN

FEBRUARY 20, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD. JJ.] B

Service Law :

- Resignation-Withdrawal of-Respondent resigned from service to con-
test Assembly elections-R.esignation accepted-After defeat in elections
respondent filed an application withdrawing his resignation-Request C
declined-On writ petition, High Court directed the· State Government to
reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits, as in similar cases
State had earlier allowed three employees to withdraw their resigna-
tions-Held High Court e"ed in directing reinstatement of the respondent.

- Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 14--Doctrine of discriminatiort-Held, is founded upon exist-
ence of an enforceable right-Article 14 would apply only when invidious
discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced w.ithout
any rational basis or relationship in that behalf-A wrong decision by Govern- E
ment does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or
equality-Respondent has no right and cannot be given the relief given wrongly
to other employees.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 27 of
~ F
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.84 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 1154 of 1984.

Jasbir Malik for Prem Malhotra for the Appellants.
G
Ms. Urmila Sirur for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

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 H
. 329
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.
)-
A No. 1154/84.

The admitted facts are that the respondent, while working as a Small
Pox Supervisor in the Health Department, had tendered his resignation on
April 32, 1982 to contest the election as a Member of the State Legislative
B 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 simil~rly situated persons, viz., Gurbajan
Singh, Daryao Singh and Smt. Sumitra Devi were allowed to withdraw their
C resignation were appointed in the respective posts held by them, the failure
. to extend similar benefit to the respondent would be violative of Article
14. Therefore, it directed the appellant to reinstate him into service with
consequential benefits.

D The question, therefore, is : whether the view taken by the High
Court is correct in law? It is seen that the respondent had voluntarily
resigned from the service and the resignation was accepted by the Govern-
ment on May 18, 1982; On and from that date, the relationship of employer
and the employee between the respondent and the State ceased and
thereafter he had no right, whatsoever, either to claim the post or a right
E to withdraw his resignation which had already became effective by accep-
tance on May 18, 1982. It may be that Government for their own reasons,
given permission in similar case, to some of the employees mentioned
earlier, to withdraw their resignations and had appointed them. The
doctrine of discrimination is found upon existence of an enforceable right.
F He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated per-
sons 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
G wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination.
If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing
mis-appropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently
that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into service. Can a similar
circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement?
H Answer is obviously 'No'. In a converse case, in the first instances, one may
STATEv. R.K.MANN 331

be wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming A
equality 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 to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two
wrongs can never made a right. Under these circumstances, the High Court B
was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a man-
damus with all consequential benefits.

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

R.P. Appeal allowed. C

•