JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—In the present writ petition petitioner’s father late Vishwa Nath Singh was working as Parchi Vitrak. He died in harness on 4.12.1988 and at said point of time petitioner was offered appointment as Parchi Vitrak. Petitioner was offered appointment on 4.12.1989 as Parchi Vitrak and thereafter with the passage of time petitioner was promoted as Seasonal Clerk and now present writ petition in question has been filed by petitioner contending that at the point of time when petitioner was offered appointment he had passed intermediate and appointment ought to have been given commensurate to his educational qualification. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Shailendra Singh, contended with vehemence that petitioner has been metted with arbitrary and discriminatory treatment and as such petitioner should be offered appointment as permanent Clerk and various incumbents appointed under Dying in Harness basis have been regularised. 3. Countering the submission Sri Mansoor Ahmad, Advocate contended that claim of petitioner is clearly dehors the rules as such no interference should be made by this Court. 4. After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case is that father of the petitioner had died in harness on 4.12.1988 and claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was accepted on 4.3.1989 and same was accepted by petitioner also without raising any grievance and thereafter with the passage of time petitioner was accorded promotion on the post of Seasonal Clerk also. Once this is the factual scenario which has emerged then contention of petitioner that at the point of time when he was offered appointment his educational qualification has not been kept in mind cannot be accepted as per judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 560 . 5. Petitioner has further tried to contend that various incumbents appointed under Dying in Harness Rules category have been regularized. Relevant rules for regularization has not all been produced before this Court, as such qua action which is not subscribed by rules qua the same no parity can be claimed, inasmuch as parity can be claimed only qua the positive act and not qua illegality if any. 6. Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. —————