Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1190 - HC - Indian LawsDiscrimnation taking place or not - Case of the Review petitioner is that after publication of the result, the last date for submission of DPE certificate was fixed as 30.7.2009 and the petitioner submitted DPE certificate on 3.8.2009 in the office of the JPSC and inspite of submission of certificate of passing DPE examination, his case was not considered - HELD THAT:- The four candidates appeared in the examination of the Diploma in Primary Education in June 2008, much prior to the date of the JPSC examination held on 10.11.2008, but the review petitioner appeared for the examination of the Diploma in Primary Education only in December 2008, subsequent to the JPSC examination and therefore, the review petitioner cannot contend that he is similarly placed as that of the aforesaid four candidates and that he has been discriminated. The contention raised by the review petitioner is that four candidates whose names have been recommended have submitted their DPE certificate on 1.10.2009, long after the extended date, i.e. 30.7.2009. Of course, all the above candidates have submitted their DPE certificates on 1.10.2009. Since those candidates were already selected, perhaps the JPSC had chosen to receive provisional DPE certificates submitted by those candidates on 1.10.2009. We are of the view that it does not amount to any discrimination. Assuming that the appointment of those four candidates have been wrongly made, that does not confer any right upon the review petitioner to seek for appointment. In the case of STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. VERSUS RAJKUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. [2006 (3) TMI 798 - SUPREME COURT], Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if any appointment has been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person and Article 14 does not envisage negative equality and if the State committed the mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. The order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review of the order - review application is dismissed.
|