- (1.) Petitioner has been regularized by means of order dated 19.11.2001 and has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to consider the date of regularization of petitioner from 4.9.1998 instead of 19.11.2009. Under the Rules, it is provided that the regularization shall take effect from the date of order of regularization. However, petitioner is seeking regularization with retrospective effect. No provision has been shown under which the backdated regularization can be claimed by petitioner.
(2.) It is said that some other persons have been allowed similar benefits, and, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the same. However, I find no force in the submission.
(3.) It is well settled that two wrongs will not make one right. In Union of India & another Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & another, 2010 2 SCC 422, the Court has gone to the extent that even if some other persons similarly placed have been absorbed, that cannot be a basis to grant a relief by the Court which is otherwise contrary to statute. In para 25 of judgment, the Court said: "Even assuming that the similarly placed persons were ordered to be absorbed, the same if done erroneously cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further appointment. An erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general welfare of the public or a considerable section. This has been the consistent approach of this Court. However, we intend to refer to a latest decision of this Court on this point in the case of State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and Ors., 2009 5 SCC 65, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinbelow: "67. By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any 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 repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order...";