^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR WRn:,PETmQN(S)_Np. 7285.0f2007 Satyawan VERSUS <DE South Eastarn Coa! Fields Ltd. WRST PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONST!TUTION OF iNDIA SB: Hon'bie iyi! i-. Present: Shri Anup Mazumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Ssnlor Advocate with Ms. Ritu Mishrs Advocate for respondents. (Passed on 6"' day of May, 2010) Learned counsei appearing for the pstitioner submits that the petitioner cla'ms aae relaxation on the oround that petitionsr has compieted apprenticeshlp for appointment on the post of Mining Sardar. The case ofthe oetitioner is that In the similariv situated condition. one Gopal Sinha was granted age re!axation. However, there is no provision in the statute, agreement or notification for grant of age retaxation in age. !t is further contended that the age relaxation is at the sweet wiil ofthe respondents and they are exereislng the power in a discriminatorv and arbitram manner. Lsarned counsei for the petitioner, in support of his contention, reiies on a decislon of Supreme Court in U.P. Stste Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others1 and U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentics WeiTare Association and another Vs. State of UttarPradesh and others . On the other hand, Dr. ShukSa, Senior counsei appearing for the respondents submlts that there is no provision for grant of age u 'AIR1995SC 1115 'AIS-2000 SC 262l •^~~ .7^" ''-'•^^'^'^. ^^sss^ ^^?as?js ^•"~i'-'t ^' ,s ^ '^ ^ ^.___^ '% ^ •% S '8®¥®a>, K ^s ^er iasSsasS95' ^ reiaxation, however, if age reiaxation was grantsd to Shri Gopal Slnha and Ajai Nair that was done way-back 22/9/1999. Petitioner cannot ciaim parity on the basis of grant of saine relief to others which v/as de hors ihe statutor/ provisions. Learned counsei further submits that the petitioner has crossed the maximum age limlt i.e. 33 years in case of Other Backward Class for sppointment on the post of Mining Sardar. The Supreme Court i" Un'ori of India & Qthers Vs. M.K. Sarkar^, whiie considering grant of benefit on the ground that simiiar benefits wsre granted to ofrsers obsen/ed as undes-: angle to the issue. !f someone has been wrongly extendsd a benefrt, that cannot be cited as a precedent for ctaiming simi!ar benefit by others. Th's Court in a series of decisions has held that guarantee of equaiity before !aw under Articie 14 is a positive concept and cannot be enforeed in a negative manner; and that if any iilegality or irregularity is committed in favour of any individuai or group of individuals, other cannot invoke the jurisdiction of courts for perpetuating the same irreguiarity or iSlegality in thsir favour aiso on the rsasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been litegaiiy exiended to others. (See Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, Gursharan SOTgh v. NDMC, Faridabad CT Scan Cwtrs v. D.G. Heatth Services, State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, State of Bihar v. Kameshww Prasad Singh. and Union ofindia v. Internatmnai Tradsng Co.}" 5. The decision of the Suoreme Court rendered in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra) deals with the preference gh/en to the apprentice. the same is not appiicable to the facts ofthe case on hand. 6. The decision of the Supreme Court rendered In U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Apprentice Weifare Association (supra), dea'ls wlth the reiaxation, ifthe age bar comes in the way ofthe trainee. The said ratio is aiso not appiicable to the facts o? the present case, as the entire il^ f%il^ si """.. Ashok case of the petitioner is on the basis of some reiaxation granted to other persons without any basis. Be that as it may, the petitioner is claiming relief on the basis of grant of age reiaxation in case of Gopai Slnha and Ajai Nair. The petitioner has failed to estabiish his iegal or any other rights seeking compliance of the same by a writ of mandamus to the respondents. There is no statutory provision, notifications, reguiations or settiement between the workers and the management for grant of age reiaxation. Thus no wnt les aaa 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition falis and is hereby dssmissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ^