Union of India and Ors v. A.K.Sharma and Ors

order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent Authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law - indeed, wherever it is possible, the court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law - but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a WP(C) 4745/2011, 5825/2011 & 5962/2011 14 of 17

basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent Authority to repeat the illegality, the court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the other person is found to be a lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioners' case is similar to the other persons' case. But then why examine another person's case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the case (sic court) and seeking the relief. Is it not more appropriate and convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his case than to enquire into the correctness of the order made or action taken in another person's case, which other person is not before the court nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a course - barring exceptional situations -would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles."

¶77In Directorate of Film Festivals and Ors. v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and Ors. (supra), a two-Judge Bench, after making a reference to the judgments in Jagjit Singh's case and Gursharan Singh's case, observed:

WP(C) 4745/2011, 5825/2011 & 5962/2011 15 of 17

"When a grievance of discrimination is made, the High Court cannot just examine whether someone similarly situated has been granted a relief or benefit and then automatically direct grant of such relief or benefit to the person aggrieved. The High Court has to first examine whether the petitioner who has approached the court has established a right, entitling him to the relief sought on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the context of such examination, the fact that some others, who are similarly situated, have been granted relief which the petitioner is seeking, may be of some relevance. But where in law, a writ petitioner has not established a right or is not entitled to relief, the fact that a similarly situated person has been illegally granted relief, is not a ground to direct similar relief to him. That would be enforcing a negative equality by perpetuation of an illegality which is impermissible in law."

¶12There is no question of discrimination in the present case as well. No doubt, the petitioners had shown laxity in not taking proper decision in the matter, however, in such circumstances, direction should have been to take final view on the basis of CVO report within a time bound manner and in case the Government comes to the conclusion that the selection is to be saved and no action is to be taken against the persons already appointed, in that eventuality, these respondents could also be directed to be appointed. On the other hand, if the Government takes action within specified time which would have been allowed by the tribunal, then the tribunal could have directed taking action against those already appointed because of irregular procedure.

WP(C) 4745/2011, 5825/2011 & 5962/2011 16 of 17

¶13We had summoned the record and we find that after the CVO had submitted the report, the same has been discussed at various levels. The opinion of the Ministry of Law is also taken. There is a note dated

18.11.2011 by an official citing the opinion of the Ministry of Law and proposing, namely, accepting the findings of the report of investigation of complaint; setting aside the process of recruitment in all the Presses; discharging of the appointed candidates on the basis of said vitiated selection process; identifying officers involved in irregularities and initiating disciplinary action against them and the manner in which such vacancies should be filled up in future to avoid recurrence of such malpractices. Having regard to the aforesaid position in law and the factual position emerging from the records, we are of the view that directions given by the tribunal are unsustainable. We, thus, set aside the impugned orders directing appointment of the respondents in these writ petitions allowing these writ petitions. At the same time, we substitute the order of the tribunal with the following directions:

"Final view in the matter shall be taken within one month from the date of this order. If the proposal, as mentioned above, namely, report of the CVO is accepted, the necessary action would be taken qua the persons already appointed as well. However, if for some reason it is decided not to accept the proposal and to continue with the existing appointments then the respondents herein shall also be appointed."

¶14We may make it clear that we have not touched upon the question as to whether findings of the CVO that the selection process is vitiated because of irregularities stated therein is correct or not. It is not even WP(C) 4745/2011, 5825/2011 & 5962/2011 17 of 17

necessary to do so as all those who are appointed are not before us and we cannot take any view in the matter in their absence. Therefore, needless to mention, in case the petitioners decide to scrap the selection process and the services of those appointed are terminated, they shall be within their right to challenge the action of the Government on its own merits and as per law.

¶15The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

(RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW)

JUDGE

MARCH 07, 2012 pk

WP(C) 4745/2011, 5825/2011 & 5962/2011 1 of 17 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 22.11.2011 % Pronounced on: 07.03.2012 + WP(C) NO. 4745 OF 2011 UOI & ORS. … PETITIONERS Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates VERSUS DHARAM VIR SINGH . . . RESPONDENT Through: Ms. Pragnya Routray, Advocate + WP(C) NO. 5962 OF 2011 UOI & ORS. … PETITIONERS Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates VERSUS A.K. SHARMA & ORS. . . . RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. B.K. Berera, Adv. + WP(C) NO. 5825 OF 2011 UOI & ORS. … PETITIONERS Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates VERSUS HARISH KUMAR & ORS. . . . RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Pragnya Routray, Advocate WP(C) 4745/2011, 5825/2011 & 5962/2011 2 of 17 CORAM :- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 1. In all these writ petitions filed by Union of India, subject matter is identical though separate orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) passed are impugned in these writ petitions. However, the outcome of the three proceedings before the tribunal, out of which present petitions arise, is also identical. Therefore, our purpose would be served in taking note of the facts of W.P.(C) No.4745/2011. 2. The genesis of the dispute is in the selection process which was carried out by the Government of India Press, Aligarh for recruitment to various posts. The respondent - Dharam Vir Singh applied for the post of Assistant Binder. He qualified the written test and thereafter appeared in the interview and as per the result declared, he got selected. His name appeared in the select list prepared for this purpose. This process was carried out in the years 2007-08. All those persons who appeared in the select list were informed about their selection and were asked to complete the formalities like the medical test, police verification, etc. On the basis of the merit in the select list, certain persons were even allowed to join. 3. A complaint was received by the petitioner alleging large scale irregularities in the recruitment process. On 3.4.2008, decision was taken at the level of Ministry to stall the process of acceptance of joining reports by the selected candidates, till the investigation was complete. WP(C) 4745/2011, 5825/2011 & 5962/2011 3 of 17 Except those who had already joined, others were not allowed to join. This decision was conveyed vide letter dated 4.4.2008 to the concerned office stating that the process of recruitment/filling up of the vacant posts was suspended forthwith. 4. The respondent waited for sometime but when nothing happened, he approached the tribunal by filing O.A. No.377/2010. This O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 3.2.2010 directing the petitioners to take decision in the matter in terms of the earlier orders dated 7.12.2009 passed in O.A. No.1194/2009. The petitioners thereafter passed orders dated 14.7.2010 stating that it had decided not to appoint the respondent to the post. Though the respondent first filed contempt petition which was disposed of giving liberty to the respondent to assail orders dated 14.7.2010 by filing appropriate application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In these circumstances, respondent approached the tribunal and filed O.A. No.3264/2010 challenging the aforesaid orders dated 14.7.2010 vide which he was denied the appointment. This O.A. has been allowed by the tribunal and tribunal has directed the petitioners to give appointment to the respondent herein. 5. We may point out that similar directions were given in respect of the respondents in other two original applications. The main reason given by the tribunal in granting the relief was that since many others are allowed to join and they are working, fate of the respondents would be the same as those persons and they would sink or swim with them. They cannot be left in the lurch and singled out for discriminatory treatm