BENCH AT JAIPUR v. The Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jyoti

Judgment

1. The Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jyoti Nagar, Jan Path, Jaipur Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jyoti Nagar, Jan Path, Jaipur.

3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Akshit Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Vigyan Shah, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Gupta, Adv. through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL 23/09/2025 Order

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 17.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court.

2. The advertisement in question was issued in the year 2013. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground [2025:RJ-JP:39099-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-553/2023] that the petitioner was not having the required Special TSP certificate as per the circular issued by the State Government.

3. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, observed as under:- This fact is not in dispute that on 09.09.2013 the “5. Government of Rajasthan issued a Circular indicating therein that the candidates seeking appointment in TSP Area are required to possess Special Bonafide Resident Certificate of TSP Area and a format of such Special Bonafide has been attached to the Circular. And as per Clause 10(vi) and (xii) of the advertisement (Annexure-1), the candidates must possess the Certificate of TSP, if he/she belongs to TSP Area and such TSP Certificate must be issued by the Competent Authority if such candidates are bonafide residents of any one of the notified TSP Areas of Rajasthan.

6. This fact is also not in dispute that though the petitioner was in possession of TSP Certificate at the time of submission of Application Form but he was not possessing Special TSP Certificate at the relevant time. The petitioner got this Special TSP Certificate on 07.10.2015. The petitioner has failed to submit his Special TSP Certificate even at the time of verification of the documents. The contention of the counsel for petitioner is that 7. two similarly situated persons, namely Mr. Gaurav Pandya and Mr.Mayank Patidar were also not having the requisite Special TSP Certificate at the time submitting the Application Form and at the time of verification of documents. They secured their Special Certificates on 25.02.2014 and 07.07.2014 i.e. much after the last date of verification of documents.

8. Perusal of the record indicates that the above two candidates were in possession of their Special TSP Certificates at the time of verification of documents and on the basis of these requisite Certificates, they were selected and appointed vide order dated 05.02.2015, while the petitioner has secured this Special TSP Certificate on 07.10.2015. The petitioner is [2025:RJ-JP:39099-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-553/2023] claiming equality and parity with these two selected candidates, namely Mr. GauravPandya and Mr. Mayank Patidar on the ground that they were in possession of their Special Certificates at the time of submission of Application Forms. Now the question before this court is “Whether the petitioner can claim negative parity with the above two persons?” 9. It is well settled proposition of law that no negative equality can be claimed as a matter of right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R. Muthukumar & Ors v. The Chairman And Managing Director TANGEDCO & Ors 2022 SCC Online SC 151, has held in para 24 as under:- “28. A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle ofparity or equality.” (9.1) In Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para 8 as under:- “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.” (9.2) v. Anup Kumar Senapati has been held that : Similarly, in the case of The State of Odisha , it 2019 SCC Online SC 1207 “If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for [2025:RJ-JP:39099-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-553/2023] repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision.” Meaning thereby, Article 14 of the Constitution (10) of India is not meant to perpetuate illegality even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. If any wrong is committed by the authorities in similar matters, it cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. Equality cannot be claimed in illegality and, therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. (10.1) Moreover, the petitioner is trying to take benefit of the example of similarly situated persons like Mr. Gaurav Pandyaand Mr. Mayank Patidar without impleading them as party to the writ petition. (11) The petitioner has failed to produce the requisite Special TSP Certificate at the time of verification of documents. In absence of this Certificate, it cannot be said that the action of respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner is in any manner vitiated. (12) In view of above, no case for interference is made out in this petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed. (13) pending if any, also stands dismissed.” Stay application and all application(s),

4. We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not having the required Special TSP certificate in compliance of the circular issued by the State Government and more so in view of the fact that the advertisement in question relates to the year 2013 and after passing of more than 12 years, we are not inclined to disturb the settled position of the employees [2025:RJ-JP:39099-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-553/2023] in the department and hence, no interference is required by this court.

6. The special appeal accordingly stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Gourav/81