JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, Judge (oral). Heard. Since both the appeals have arisen from impugned order dated 24.8.2012, passed in CWP No. 415 of 2012, by a learned Single Judge of this court, the same are taken up together for disposal. 2. The present appeals have been preferred by a group of persons working as Para Teachers appointed in the year 2003 and onwards, after obtaining leave to appeal by way of CMP No. 1206 of 2012. The appellants have challenged the order dated 24.08.2012, Annexure A4, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in CWP No. 415 of 2012, titled Amit Sharma vs. State of H.P and Others. 3. The prayers made in CWP No. 415 of 2012, are as follows:-“i) That the impugned order/letter dated passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 415 of 22.11.2011 contained in Annexure P-4 vide which the respondents are going to regularize para teachers may kindly be quashed and set-aside. ii) That further the action of the respondents vide which the respondents are going to regularize the para teachers may also be declared as null and void. iii) That the entire record pertaining to the case may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” 4. The impugned order dated 24.08.2012, 2012, reads as under:- In sequel to the order dated 1st August, 2012, reply has not been filed. Mr.Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General, has prayed for and is granted four weeks’ time to file reply. No Para Teacher shall be regularized, without obtaining orders from the court. 5. This court on an earlier occasion dealt CWP No. 5572 of 2012, titled Ajay Kumar Thakur and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, and has adjudicated and decided similar issue vide its judgment/order dated 02.08.2012. The following prayers were made in CWP No. 5572 of 2012:- “i) For issuing a direction to the respondents not to regularize the services of Para Teachers. ii) For directing the respondent State to regularize the services of the petitioners/similarly situated persons on the posts being held by them. Or in the alternative respondents may kindly be directed not to regularize the Para Teachers without recognizing the prior and preferential right of the petitioners to be regularized against the posts of Lecturers/TGTs/C&V teachers.” 6. ii) For directing the respondent State to regularize the services of the petitioners/similarly situated persons on the posts being held by them. Or in the alternative respondents may kindly be directed not to regularize the Para Teachers without recognizing the prior and preferential right of the petitioners to be regularized against the posts of Lecturers/TGTs/C&V teachers.” 6. The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the prayers made in CWP No. 415 of 2012, titled Amit Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others were also similar to that as have been made in CWP No. 5572 of 2012, titled Ajay Kumar Thakur and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, and for not making the Para Teachers as party either in the representative capacity or group, this court has not invoked its discretionary jurisdiction and has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition vide judgment dated 02.08.2012. 7. In order to adjudicate the present controversy, it is necessary to give a few paragraphs of the above mentioned judgment dated 02.08.2012, passed in CWP No. 5572 of 2012, which are as follows:-“7. Since the petitioners have not made Para Teachers as party-respondent, as such, no relief can be granted to them against Para Teachers. During the course of hearing, the attention of learned counsel for the petitioners was invited by this Court, several times regarding the fact that as to why the Para Teachers, against whom relief has been sought, has not been made party. Neither any request was made by and on behalf of the petitioners nor any application was moved to implead them or even no one of the Para Teachers as party-respondent in representative capacity was made, whereas, Para Teachers are necessary parties. As such, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma Vs. State of U.P., AIR (1984) 4 SCC 251 as well as V.P. Shrivastva Vs. State of M.P., (1996) 7 SCC 759 (Para 16). The petitioners are not entitled to relief as prayed for. 8. Nothing has been brought before this Court that how the legal rights of petitioners have been threatened or their legal rights regarding regularization is in immediate peril, whereas, the petitioners have no legal right of being regularization at present, as such, decision of Supreme Court in K.K. Kochunni and Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. (supra) are not helpful to the petitioners. 9. Ltd. (supra) are not helpful to the petitioners. 9. In our considered view, nothing has been brought before this Court that the petitioners are in all respects similarly situated and equal to Para Teachers. For the sake of arguments, if, it is presumed that in view of decision of this Court in Dhananjay Saini (supra), on the point of similarity of emoluments of Contract Teachers and Para Teachers, the petitioners being Contractual Teachers are similarly situated to Para Teachers, in that case also no instance has been highlighted by the petitioners as to how they are being discriminated. Article 14 applies where there is discrimination amongst equals. Unequals cannot claim equality as Supreme Court in Madhu Kishwar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1864 has observed that every discrimination does not necessarily fall within the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution. In our considered view, discrimination means an unjust, unfair action in favour of one and against another. 10. Keeping in view the prayer of the petitioners the present writ petition is futile writ, and the Courts are not to issue the futile orders or writs, wherein the petitioner is not likely to get any relief, in view of the decision in Kumari Chitra Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 35 and S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 136 . 11. Analyzing the present petition, it appears that the same is also not maintainable, as the petitioners cannot said to be the persons aggrieved. A person, who suffers from legal injury, only can challenge the act/action/order etc. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing a statutory or legal right or duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction, in view of decisions of Supreme Court in Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. Vs. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction, in view of decisions of Supreme Court in Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044 ; Mani Subrat Jain etc. etc. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 276 ; State of Kerala Vs. A. Lakshmikutty & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 331 ; Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Chand Behari Kapoor & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 3104 ; State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. K.G. Madhavan Pillai & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 49 ; Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2736 ; Utkal University etc. Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 943 ; Laxminarayan R. Bhattad & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 413 ; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association Vs. S.C. Sevar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784 . 12. In Thammanna Vs. K. Veera Reddy, AIR 1981 SC 116 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that although the meaning of expression “person aggrieved” may vary according to the context of the Statute and facts of the case, nevertheless, normally, a person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance; a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something or wrongfully refused something, or wrongfully affected his title to someone. In Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 273 , Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the claim of a stranger to maintain a writ petition even in Public Interest. In M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 552 , Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the matter at length and placed reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments including the Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. Vs. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 998; and has observed that the Court must examine the issue of locus standi from all angles and the petitioner should be asked to disclose as what is the legal injury suffered by him. The “person aggrieved” means a person who is wrongfully deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. The “person aggrieved” means a person who is wrongfully deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. “Person aggrieved” means a person who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.N. Lakshminarasimaiah Vs. Secretary, Mysore S.T.A.T., (1966) 2 Mys. L.J. 199). Whether a person is injured in strict legal sense, must be determined by the nature of the injury considering the facts and circumstances involving in each case. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance, as the law can appreciate and not a “stat pro ratione valuntas reasons”. 13. In our considered view, in view of the above observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners have failed to convince this Court that any of their legal or fundamental rights have been infringed. Therefore, in facts and circumstances, the Court may not invoke its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the present writ petition, if the petitioner fails to highlight that any of his legal or fundamental right has been infringed. The purpose of the writ Court is not only to protect a person from being subjected for violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the Court and in exercise of discretionary powers, the Court has to balance the interest of petitioners, keeping in view the interest of justice and Para Teachers against whom the relief is being sought behind their back. Therefore, in present case, this Court is not invoking the writ jurisdiction in view of the observations made by Supreme Court from time to time in Champalal Binani Vs. Income Tax Commissioner, West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 645 ; Ramniklal N. Bhutta Vs. State of Maharastra, (1977) 1 SCC 134; Chimajirao K. Shrike Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2532 ; Ganpatrao Sharma Prashant Raje Vs. Ganpat Rao, AIR 2000 SC 3094 ; LIC of India Vs. Asha Goyal, AIR 2001 SC 549 ; Roshandeen Vs. State of Maharastra, (1977) 1 SCC 134; Chimajirao K. Shrike Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2532 ; Ganpatrao Sharma Prashant Raje Vs. Ganpat Rao, AIR 2000 SC 3094 ; LIC of India Vs. Asha Goyal, AIR 2001 SC 549 ; Roshandeen Vs. Preeti Lal, AIR 2002 SC 33 ; S.D.S. Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jay Container Services Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2186; and Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 2889 .” 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis and observations, made by this Court (DB), any condition, indicated by learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 24.8.2012, passed in CWP No.415 of 2012, is not required as any direction or condition shall be in derogation to the judgment dated 2.8.2012 of this Court (DB) in CWP No.5572 of 2012. Therefore, the order dated 24.8.2012 is liable to be set aside and present letters patent appeals are liable to be allowed. Accordingly, order dated 24.8.2012, passed in CWP No.415 of 2012, is set aside and both the letters patent appeals, namely, LPA No.405 of 2012 and 406 of 2012, are allowed. A copy of this order be placed on the records of CWP No.415 of 2012 with a request to learned Single Judge to deal with said writ petition accordingly. It goes without saying that allowing the above letters patent appeals do not imply that the State Government is being given liberty to regularize Para Teachers as in case of issuance of any order or notification for such category of teachers for regularization, the same shall be tested on the merits of the case. CMP Nos. 1204, 1205, 1206 and 1207 of 2012 in LPA No. 405 of 2012 and CMP Nos. 1210 and 1211 of 2012 in LPA No. 406 of 2012. 9. In view of the disposal of the LPAs, the above CMPs are also disposed of.