ORDER S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 29-4-1998 (Annexure-P-16) by which the petitioners have been reverted from the post of Clerks to that of the Peons. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially appointed as Peons on daily wages in M. P. Board of Secondary Education in 1986, 1987 and 1988. They were appointed as regular Peons on 30-8-1993. The petitioner No. 1 was promoted as Clerk on 30-6-1996 and the petitioners No. 2 and 3 were promoted to that post on 25-7-1996. They have been reverted to the post of peons by the impugned order dated 29-4-1998 primarily on the ground that they had not completed five years regular service as peons. That was the condition precedent for promotion as Clerk as per circular dated 15-11-1984 (Annexure-P-6) of the State Government. 3. The petitioners' case is that their service as daily wage employees should have been counted for reckoning the period of five years experience. It is pointed out that there are several employees working as Clerks who were promoted counting their service as daily wages employees. The impugned order is said to have been passed to overreach the order dated 20-4-1998 in W.P. No. 165l of 1998 of this Court. 4. The respondents' case is that the promotion orders in respect of the petitioners were contrary to the instructions in the circular of the State Government and, therefore, these were cancelled. Similar action is being taken in respect of other similarly situated employees. 5. The learned counsel for both the sides have been heard. The petitioners are relying upon the circular dated 15-11-1984 of the State Government Tor their promotion from the post of peons to the post of clerks and therefore the petitioners are naturally bound by the conditions for promotion given in this circular. This circular provides for promotion of the peons to the post of clerks who have completed five years regular service. It is clear that the service put in as daily wage employee cannot be counted for the purpose of this promotion. The policy of the Government cannot be interfered with by the Courts if it is not in contravention of any law, BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350 . 6. It is clear that the service put in as daily wage employee cannot be counted for the purpose of this promotion. The policy of the Government cannot be interfered with by the Courts if it is not in contravention of any law, BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350 . 6. The impugned order is in conformity with the circular and the petitioners were promoted as Clerks in violation of this circular. That illegality has been set right by the impugned order. 7. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that they ought to have been heard before the cancellation of their promotion order. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in J. Shashidhara Prasad v. Governor of Karnataka, (1999) 1 SCC 422 . In the opinion of this Court there was no need of show cause notice to the petitioners as the illegality was apparent, that would have been a "useless formality". This theory has grown and is an exception to the rule of audi alteram partem. See Wade on Administrative Law, 7th Edition pages 526-527 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 . The Supreme Court has laid down that there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. In Ridge v. Baldwin, it was held that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself treated as prejudice and that no other 'de facto' prejudice need to be proved. But, since then the rigour of the rule has been relaxed not only in England but also in India. The principle that in addition to breach of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed by the Supreme Court in several cases. The "useless formality" theory is an exception. It applies to cases of "admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion" as discussed in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379 . The applicability of this theory would depend upon the facts of a particular case. The "useless formality" theory is an exception. It applies to cases of "admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion" as discussed in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379 . The applicability of this theory would depend upon the facts of a particular case. The "prejudice test" is also clearly discernible from the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 and that can be applied where the complaint is violation of the principles of natural justice. "No prejudice" is another exception to this celebrated rule. In the present case the petitioners are not in any way prejudiced because no show cause notice was given to them when their promotion order suffered from the basic defect pointed out above. 8. The argument that there are other employees in whose case this circular laying down the condition of five years regular service was not followed and, therefore, the petitioners' promotion on that ground should not have been cancelled, cannot be accepted. There is nothing like "negative equality". Bad precedents need not be followed. There cannot be perpetuation of illegality. The Court cannot put its seal of approval on illegal or irregular acts. The Court can give relief to the persons for enforcement of their legal rights. They have to establish that their legal or fundamental right has been infringed to seek Redressal of their grievance from the Court. 9. The Supreme Court has observed in State of Bihar v. K.P. Singh, AIR 2000 SC 2306 that the concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on the ground of denial thereof to them. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court recently in Union of India v. International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437 by observing that two wrongs do not make a right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case; direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong, in such matters there is no discrimination involved. (2003) 5 SCC 437 by observing that two wrongs do not make a right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case; direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong, in such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality. 10. The petition is dismissed.