LexNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, JAMSHEDPUR AND ORS. versus CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHAUDHARY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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 H 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. 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 direc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.