Director, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Uttarakhand at Dehradun and another v. Lal Chand

objections stated that in view of the fact that one Sri Ranjit Singh who has also having the qualification of “Prathama” was promoted to clerical post, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to Class III post in case similarly situated person has been promoted from Class III post. Since the order dated

25.7.2008 is a very short order, relevant portion needs to be stated here :- “2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the substantive post of Chaprasi in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti on 1.12.1997. The respondent no. 3 was also appointed along with the petitioner on 1.12.1977 and he was promoted on 29.4.1991 to the post of Clerk / Stenographer. On 19.12.2002, the respondent vide his letter, short listed the candidates, who were eligible to be promoted from Class IV to Class III Clerk Cadre, where the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 2 and he was personally informed to appear for interview/examination on 23.12.200. According examination along with other candidates. On 19.6.2003, the respondent no. 2 had released a list of 10 candidates found to be eligible for promotion the petitioner, he passed 3 It has further been stated on 19.6.2003, but the name of the petitioner did not figure there. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the persons, who were not having requisite qualification, have been promoted, but he petitioner, who is having requisite qualification, has been deprived of promotion. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein in paragraph 4 that Prathama and Madhyama Examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad is not equivalent to High School / Intermediate of U.P. Education Board. Certificate/Degree awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahaabad has not been recognized by the State of U.P. or State of Uttarakhand. 5. Against the said counter, a rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, where in paragraph 2 (F), it has been stated that one Mr. Ranjit Singh, Clerk is also Prathma and Madhyama and was promoted to that post from IV. 6. Heard Counsel for both the parties. 7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner to Class-III post in case similarly situated person(s) (Clerk), has/have been promoted to Class-III (Clerk) from the Class-IV post. 8. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.” This order was challenged by the Director, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Uttarakhand before this Court in Special Appeal No. 247 of 2008 and after hearing both the parties at length, this Court was of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and hence was set aside. The reasons given by the Division Bench were that the qualification of “Prathama” or “Madhyama” which is given by the “Hindi Sahitya Sammellan", Allahabad are admittedly not recognised in Uttar Pradesh or in Uttarakhand as equivalent to High School qualification. Therefore, the 4 petitioner cannot claim that he has passed High School or has High School qualification. Moreover, the contention of the petitioner that since one Ranjit Singh has been promoted to Class III post on the basis of similar qualification he is also liable to be promoted, was also negated by the Division Bench by citing a judgment of the Apex Court, namely, Directorate of Film Festivals and others Vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others (2007) 4 SCC 737, whereby the Apex Court had clearly stated that a person must claim equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the basis of his just and positive claim. Merely because certain benefit has been granted to others wrongfully, the same benefit cannot be claimed by the petitioner. In short, two wrongs do not make a right. In the present case this Court was clearly of the view that since “Prathama” was not equivalent to High School, under no condition was the Director, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Uttaranchal bound to give such an equivalence to the petitioner and nor is the Court a body to grant such equivalence. Moreover, if such an equivalence is wrongfully granted to somebody, this cannot be a reason for granting equivalence to the petitioner. Now, the respondent in the Special Appeal i.e. Lal Chand has filed the present Review Petition, inter alia, stating that the “Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad” is a validly constituted body under the law which is empowered to grant a degree of “Prathama” and “Madhyama” and since it has been empowered by law to grant such a degree such equivalence has to be granted the Director, Krishi Uptadan Mandi Samiti, Uttaranchal was not justified in refusing the grant of equivalence to High School. This argument of the review- 5 petitioner, as it was earlier, is totally misconceived. Nobody is challenging the authority of the “Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad” to grant a particular certificate or degree if it has the powers to do so under the law. The question is not this. The question is, whether the employer i.e. the State or the instrumentality of the State will also have to treat that degree or certificate as equivalent to High School. If the employer which in the present case is the Director, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti feels that it has not to be treated as High School, the petitioner cannot claim equivalence. Moreover, this matter has already been decided at length, the learned Single Judge had allowed the petition of the petitioner on the sole ground that similarly situated person has been granted promotion and, therefore, the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner if such a case has earlier been considered. This was entirely a wrong approach, inasmuch as if a wrong had been committed by the “Mandi Samiti” they cannot be compelled by the Court to commit the wrong again. It was based on this principle and following the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Special Appeal was allowed by this Court. Most of the grounds raised by the review-petitioner in the present review-petition are repetitive in nature. It is true that the High Court has inherent powers to review its own order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet the scope of these powers is limited and has to be exercised within the well defined parameters, such as, where a judgment is vitiated by an error apparent on face of record in the sense that it is evident on a mere looking at the record without any long drawn process of reasoning. Secondly, if there is a serious irregularity in 6 the proceedings such as violation of principle of natural justice and fair play. Thirdly, if a mistake is committed by an erroneous assumption of a fact which if allowed to stand, would cause miscarriage of justice; and lastly where any directions contained in the order have resulted in deprivation of any fundamental or any legal right of the petitioner. On a careful examination of both the facts and law in the present case, we are of the considered view that none of the above contingencies, as referred above, are present in the present matter which may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its powers of review. The review-petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) Avneet

20.4.2010