JUDGEMENT 1. By these two writ petitions, the three petitioners challenge the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies as passed in Case No. 66 of 2003 (Annexure-1) which was issued pursuant to directions of this Court in CWJC No. 1103 of 2004 which was disposed of on 26.9.2005. 2. The facts of the two writ petitions are similar and, as such, have been taken up for final disposal together at this stage itself with consent of parties. 3. The sole petitioner in CWJC No. 7555 of 2006 was appointed as a Clerk in the office of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies in January, 1986. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 in CWJC No. 9965 of 2006 were appointed on daily wages in the year, 1981 in the office of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Subsequently, in the year, 1988-1989, apart from others, services of the petitioners were terminated on the ground that they were wrongly and illegally appointed. Petitioners challenged the same before this Court and this Court, in the year, 1992-1993, held that the order of termination could not be sustained as it was passed without notice. The termination orders were, thus, set aside and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated with full back wages. Petitioners were reinstated on 11.2.1994 with full back wages, as directed by this Court but immediately thereafter, within a month and a half, they were again terminated. It appears that some other persons were also terminated being a group of 73 employees. They preferred appeal before the Secretary, Department of Cooperative who set aside their termination and directed their reinstatement. Petitioners also then approached the Secretary who directed their reinstatement treating them similarly to the earlier batch. It appears that Department filed a review application before the Secretary. The Secretary, without notice to these petitioners, reviewed his earlier order and recalled his order for reinstatement of the petitioners. He remanded the matter to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for a fresh consideration. This time, he refused to treat the petitioners similar to those who were also dismissed being about 73 in number. Petitioners challenged this order of the Secretary reviewing his earlier order before this Court. This Court, in writ petitions, directed the Registrar to examine the matter and pass speaking order keeping in view the plea of discrimination. This time, he refused to treat the petitioners similar to those who were also dismissed being about 73 in number. Petitioners challenged this order of the Secretary reviewing his earlier order before this Court. This Court, in writ petitions, directed the Registrar to examine the matter and pass speaking order keeping in view the plea of discrimination. It is obvious that this Court did not interfere with the order of the Secretary by which the Secretary had reviewed his earlier order. Now, by the impugned order, the Registrar has refused to treat the petitioners similar to other 73 persons. This has brought.the petitioners to this Court. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, no cause for interference in the order of the Registrar is made out. First, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that the case of the petitioners and those of the 73 other persons were similar. They must receive similar treatment. In my view, that submission cannot be accepted. Firstly, it must be remembered that the Rule of Article 14 against discrimination is a positive Rule and not a negative. If someone has been wrongly reinstated, others cannot blindly follow the same. Reinstatement is on the basis of personal rights. The second and more important reason is that, by the impugned order, the Registrar has given cogent finding in paragraph-13 of the impugned order as to why he cannot treat the cases similarly. The Registrar found that so far as the 73 other persons are concerned, they had worked for a very long period before State took a decision to terminate them on ground of their illegal appointment. So far as petitioner in the first writ petition is concerned, he was appointed in 1986 and terminated in 1989. The period was hardly two to three years. Learned counsel states that this Court directed petitioners reinstatement with back wages and, accordingly, petitioner was reinstated in the year, 1994 with back wages and, thus, it should be deemed that the petitioner was in continuous employment from 1988 to 1994 that is eight years. In the facts of the case, it is not correct. Petitioner was in employment for about 3 years only but because he was dismissed without show cause, in 1994 he was reinstated with back wages with continuity of service on this technicality. 5. In the facts of the case, it is not correct. Petitioner was in employment for about 3 years only but because he was dismissed without show cause, in 1994 he was reinstated with back wages with continuity of service on this technicality. 5. So far as petitioners in the second writ petition are concerned, they were appointed in the year, 1991 and their appointments were cancelled in the year, 1998. As noticed by the Registrar in the impugned order, in so far as the other 73 persons are concerned, they were all in service continuously for over nine years and it is because of this reason that the Secretary reviewed the order which, as noted above, was not interfered with by this Court. This Court did not set aside the order of the Secretary on review. The Secretary had remanded the matter to Registrar for fresh decision which order was merely reiterated by this Court. 6. For the aforesaid reason, in my view, on the facts, as obtaining in the present cases, the plea of hostile discrimination does not stand established. The petitioners have been out of service since 1994. They cannot now be ordered to be reinstated in service on ground aforesaid. 7. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.