2025:JHHC:37894 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.7398 of 2025 ----- Dashrath Kumar, aged about-24 Years, Son of Late Jai Kishun Paswan, Resident of-Village-Bara Bhorai, P.O.-Lohandia Bazar, P.S.-Lalmatia, District-Godda. … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahagama, P.O. and P.S.- Mahagama, District-Godda. 5. The Officer-in-Charge, Lalmatiya, P.O.-Lalmatiya, P.S.- Lalmatiya, District-Godda. … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birendra Kr. Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, AC to SC (L&C)-II …...... 03 /17.12.2025: Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner prays for Certiorari to quash the order contained in Memo No. 46 dated 26.06.2022 whereby the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner to the post of Chowkidar has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite educational qualification. 3. After hearing the parties at length, I find that admittedly father of this petitioner was Chowkidar who died in harness on 23.11.2016. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. His claim was processed and it was found that he possess a qualification which according to the petitioner is matriculation and has been provided by “All India Council for Open Education”. 4. It is the case of the respondents that the said “All India Council for Open Education” is an organisation and the certificate issued by them is not equivalent to any degree certificate issued by 2025:JHHC:37894 2 the Government or Board or any Council. This means that the petitioner’s certificate is not recognised by any Board or Institution or Council. On this ground his application was rejected. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents accepted this certificate in respect of other similarly situated persons but for the reasons best known to them they are not accepting the petitioner’s certificate which was issued by “All India Council for Open Education”. He submits that when the others have been given appointment on the basis of the same certificate there is no ground to reject the claim of the petitioner. 6. The fact that this “All India Council for Open Education” is not recognised by the Government is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the certificate issued by this organisation is not equivalent with any Government or Board or Council recognised by the Government. Thus, this certificate issued by this Body has got no legal recognition or sanction. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner is matriculate. 7. As per the Rule framed by the State of Jharkhand the matriculate is the minimum qualification for obtaining employment in the Government. So far as the claim of the petitioner that similarly situated person who has obtained the same certificate from “All India Council for Open Education” has been appointed by the State is concerned, I am of the opinion that this Court cannot allow this illegality to perpetuate. When the circular and scheme of the Government provides that no person can be appointed without being matriculate, since the petitioner cannot be said to be matriculate, he also cannot be appointed. If anyone has been appointed based on some documents or certificate which is unrecognised, illegality has been committed. When this illegality has been brought to the notice of this Court, this Court cannot continue with the same. It is well settled principle of law that there is no equality in illegality. 2025:JHHC:37894 3 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in “Director of Town Panchayat v. M. Jayabal” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2794 has reiterated the principle of negative discrimination and has held as under: “16. ...No one can approach the court and base his claim on negative discrimination merely because some relief has been granted to a person who may not be entitled to the same. This Court in Tinku's case (supra) opined that wrongful conferment of a right or claim on someone would not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court and nor would the court be bound to accept such a plea. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: “11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification.” 9. Considering what has been held above and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition, thus, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 17.12.2025 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 19.12.2015