Supreme Court overturns High Court decision on reinstatement, emphasizes enforceable rights

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision regarding the respondent's reinstatement. The judgment emphasized that enforcing a wrong decision does not entitle an individual to claim equality or parity under Article 14. The Court highlighted the importance of having an enforceable right to seek relief and concluded that the High Court's direction for reinstatement was erroneous. The appeal was allowed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include resignation withdrawal, equality under Article 14, invidious discrimination, and enforcement of wrong orders.

Resignation Withdrawal:
The respondent, a Small Pox Supervisor, tendered his resignation to contest the election but later withdrew it. The High Court observed that the respondent had no enforceable right to claim the benefit of withdrawal of resignation, especially when three similarly situated persons were not granted the same relief. The Court highlighted that allowing a wrong decision to be enforced does not entitle an individual to claim equality under Article 14 for reinstatement.

Equality under Article 14:
The High Court's decision was based on the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that invidious discrimination occurs when equals are treated differently without any rational basis. The judgment highlighted that enforcing a wrong decision does not lead to equality or parity, as two wrongs do not make a right. The respondent's right to equality treatment must be founded on an enforceable right, which was lacking in this case.

Enforcement of Wrong Orders:
The judgment discussed the implications of enforcing wrong orders. It was emphasized that a wrong decision by the Government does not give an individual the right to enforce that decision and claim parity or equality. The Court illustrated this point by comparing the scenario to an employee dismissed for misappropriation of money and later reinstated - the reinstatement cannot be claimed as a right based on equality under Article 14. The High Court was deemed to be incorrect in directing the respondent's reinstatement through a mandamus, as there was no enforceable right for such relief.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision regarding the respondent's reinstatement. The judgment emphasized that enforcing a wrong decision does not entitle an individual to claim equality or parity under Article 14. The Court highlighted the importance of having an enforceable right to seek relief and concluded that the High Court's direction for reinstatement was erroneous. The appeal was allowed without costs.

---