Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
21. See also MRF Ltd, Kottayam v. Asst/. Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax and Ors., [2006] 8 SCC 702
22. In any event, the said purported resolution appears to be vague, inasmuch as it does not lay down as to from which date, the said amended E regulation would come into effect.
23. No retrospective operation could also be given having regard to the fact that thereby the rights of other employees of the University could not have been taken away. It is not in dispute that other teachers of the University have been given promotion. Respondent would be entitled to be promoted F only in the event his break in his service is condoned and the increments as prayed for by him for the period during which he was working with the _. Zambia University may be granted and not otherwise.
24. Furthermore, the State has declined to grant such benefits to the G respondent. It was on that premise the purported offer made by the University was recalled. The same, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary in nature.
25. Jn terms of the original Regulation 26(ii)(c), leave was to be granted <in an invitation to a teaching post. No such invitation was made to the respondent. He applied for his appointment with the Zambia University himself. H Even assuming that the amendments made in the regulation is valid, the j VICE CHANCELLOR, M.D. UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK 1·. JAHAN SINGH [S.B. SINHA,).] 685 extended meaning of 'invitation' would also have no application in the fact of A -f the present case. By reason of the said amendment, invitation may include both the direct offer or any offer received in response to an application, but indisputably such an application or bio-data must be sent by the employee through the University to an institution in India or abroad. As the respondent …. . ' was not in the service of the University before he had made such an application, B a' fortiori the question of the respondent's application being sent by the employee through the University did not and could not arise.
26. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in State ofU.P. and Anr. v. Jogendra Singh and Anr., [1998] 1 SCC 449, which deals with payment of retiral benefits. The said decision has, however, been relied C upon for the proposition that all laws are prospective unless made retrospective either expressly or by necessary implication.
27. We have noticed hereinbefore that the retrospective operation purported to have been given by the Executive Council is ultra vires the Act.
28. So far as the case of Satpal Taneja is concerned, the same stands on a different footing. W do not intend to dilate on the said question in details as the learned Single Judge in his judgment pointed out the case of the respondent viz.-e-viz. Mr. Taneja at some length. We agree therewith.
29. Even assuming the respondent and the said Shri Taneja were similarly E situated, we may observe that Article 14 of the Constitution of India carries with it a positive concept. Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked, for perpetuating illegality. {See Ku/deep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, [2006] 5 sec 102}
30. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High F Court was not correct in interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge as the case of the respondent is not even covered by the said regulations.
31. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly and that of the learned Single Judge is restored. The appeal is allowed.
32. However, if any amount has been paid to the respondent by the University, the same may not be recovered from him. B.B.B. Appeal allowed. H