State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Ram Kumar Mann 
INSC 193 (20 February 1997)
RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
O R D
E R 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 No. 1154/84.
admitted facts are the respondent, while working as a Small Pox Supervisor in
the Health Department, had tendered his resignation on April 23, 1982 to contest the election as a Member
of the State Legislative 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.
was dismissed. Consequently, the respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition
in the High Court. The High Court observed that since three similarly situated
persons 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 wrong in
reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. If we cannot
allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing misappropriation of
money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and
he is reinstated into the service.
similar circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement?
Answer is obviously `No'. In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be
wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for
enforcement of the same order. As stated earlier 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 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 was
clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a mandamus by a
mandamus with all consequential benefits.
appeal is accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances without costs.