( 1 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to amend the petition as per proposed draft. Permission granted. On the basis that the amendment is carried out, the petition is taken up for hearing. ( 2 ) THE petition challenges order dated 8th March, 2007 whereunder the application of the petitioner for making grant available to the petitioner stands rejected. The learned advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of respondent-Authority on the ground that the only reason which has weighed with the Authority, namely, closure of the school, is not a valid ground considering the fact that the registration / recognition granted to the school run by the petitioner is continuing. In this context, the following averments made in paragraph No. 3. 11 of the petition have been emphasised: 3. 11 The petitioner institution is still running since the registration of the school is still in operation and therefore, in the eye of law, the school is running. It is submitted that in the representation dated 16. 03. 2007 also, the same is pointed out to the Authority and it has been specifically pointed out that in March, 2006 -The students had appears in the Board Examination, deposit of Rs. 1 Lakh is still with the Government, examination Index Number is continued, registration and recognition is still continued with the Board. Even in the year 2007, the students have submitted their forms from the petition school and since the school is running, the forms are accepted by the Board Authority. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Sardar Patel Charitable Trust V/s. State of Gujarat and 1. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned advocate for the petitioner it is apparent that the Judgment of this Court in the case of Sardar Patel Charitable Trust V/s. State of Gujarat and 1 in Special Civil Application No. 6381 of 1998 and cognate matters rendered on 05. 07. 2006 cannot assist the case of the petitioner. In the said judgment, it was observed: "firstly, the petitioners can at best claim consideration of their applications on the basis of the prevailing Government policy. Secondly, this Court, prima facie found that there was no well laid down and well circulated Government policy to consider such cases. 07. 2006 cannot assist the case of the petitioner. In the said judgment, it was observed: "firstly, the petitioners can at best claim consideration of their applications on the basis of the prevailing Government policy. Secondly, this Court, prima facie found that there was no well laid down and well circulated Government policy to consider such cases. It was precisely because of this reason that the Court called upon the Government to specify its stand through affidavit. The Government has now come out with guidelines to consider such cases. It would be improper to require the Government to consider the applications of these petitioners without any reference to any guidelines simply because in the past in some cases the Government had granted conversion from non-grant-in-aid to grant-in-aid institutions. The ground realities have undergone changes since the applications were made by the institutions to the Government. The applications, therefore, must receive consideration as the situation prevails at present on the basis of the current Government policy. Though in some cases, attempt has been made to point out that under identical circumstances some institutions were granted such conversion whereas the petitioners were denied such treatment, it is virtually impossible for this Court to come to the conclusion that two cases are exactly of same nature. There are wide variance of facts and circumstances and as observed by this Court in the case of Vidhya Sagar Education Trust (supra), each case would normally depend on its own facts. Therefore, the petitioners cannot base their claims on the basis of the conversion granted by the Government in the past in favour of certain institutions. If at all there were any irregularities and laxities shown by the Government while accepting the case of such institutions, it may be a case to inquire further in this regard. That, however, by itself would not give a positive right in favour of the petitioners to claim parity. Equality is a well laid down positive concept and cannot be applied in negative (see State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, (2000) 9 SCC 94 ) and no citizen has a right to insist that irregularity or illegality committed in favour of another person should be repeated in his case also (see case of State of M. P. v. Ramesh Kumar Sharma AIR 1994 SC 845 ). The upshot of the above discussion would be that the Government should be asked to formulate and publish its policy for consideration of special cases for conversion of non-grant-in-aid school into grant-in-aid school. The respondents should apply such policy in future in all cases uniformly subject of course to budgetary allocations. This is however not to suggest that such policy must remain constant or stagnant. For valid consideration to meet with different requirements to adopt to changed circumstances, it would always be open to the Government to modify the policy through subsequent GRs. Since it is found that in case of these petitioners, their applications have been turned down by the respondents time and again solely on the ground that they had at one stage agreed not to avail of grant while number of other institutions who had also given such undertakings were given grant, I find it appropriate that the Government should indicate its reasons for considering such applications in future. This would minimize the possibility of any discrimination as also enable the higher authorities or the courts to examine the reasons which weighed with the Government or its authorities in either granting or refusing such conversion. It would, therefore, be necessary that while dealing with, deciding and disposing of such applications, either accepting or refusing conversion, the authorities should record its reasons, however, brief the same may be". ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENT thereto in paragraph No. 18 of the Judgment while issuing various directions it has been stated: "the applications of all the petitioners except those wherein the institutions have been closed down will be considered by the Government in light of the policy that may be circulated". ( 5 ) THEREFORE, in the first instance the claim of the petitioner on the basis of other Institutions being entitled to grant-in-aid cannot be a basis for the petitioner becoming entitled to such grant-in-aid. In the earlier round of proceedings wherein petitioner was also one of the parties, the Court has categorically stated that there can be no parity in such cases and each case must depend on its own facts. ( 6 ) THE impugned order records that the petitioner is not entitled to grant-in-aid as the school is closed since 2003 onwards and on the date of the order also, the District Education Officer has reported that the School is closed. ( 6 ) THE impugned order records that the petitioner is not entitled to grant-in-aid as the school is closed since 2003 onwards and on the date of the order also, the District Education Officer has reported that the School is closed. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted in relation to the aforesaid finding that though admittedly at present the school does not have any teaching or non-teaching staff, yet for the purposes of Board examinations forms submitted by the students have been accepted by the Board and the students permitted to take examinations. The Court therefore inquired from the learned advocate as to whether they were regular students or otherwise, and the Court was informed that these were repeater students who had failed in the Board examinations at earlier attempts. For the year 2007 Board examinations only two such students, namely, repeater students have tendered their forms through the petitioner School. ( 7 ) THE concept of a school which is running need not be spelt out as it is apparent that a school can function only when it has students on its roles who are actually studying and are being imparted education by necessary qualified teaching staff. Merely because an Institution has been granted recognition in the past and that recognition has not been cancelled or withdrawn a school does not exist as a school. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, the petition does not merit acceptance on any of the grounds pleaded or otherwise in absence of any legal infirmity in the impugned order made by respondent-Authority. The petition is accordingly summarily rejected.