Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.S. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Jal Sansthan, Agra and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1. According to the petitioner he and one Gajendra Singh both were working as daily wager class IV employees in Jal Sansthan, Agra and both of them by separate orders of the same date i.e. 23.02.1999 were regularized on the post of IInd Grade clerk in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500, however Sri Gajendra Singh was paid the salary in the said pay scale, but the petitioner was not paid the salary in the said pay scale and petitioner was denied to be paid the salary of Class III employee as he was wrongly treated to have been confirmed on the class IV post. Order dated 23.02.1999 in respect of petitioner is Annexure No.5 to the writ petition and order of the same date in favour of Gajendra Singh is Annexure No.6 to the writ petition. Both the orders are word by word same except the names of the appointees. The orders state that on the approval of the Chairman, Jal Sansthan, Agra on the vacant post of Grade II clerk, the petitioner and Gajendra Singh Class IV employees were being regularized. According to learned counsel for the petitioner subsequently several orders were passed in favour of the petitioner for payment of salary of class III post but of no avail. Copies of the said orders are Annexure No.8 dated 31.05.2002, Annexure No.10 dated 13.01.2003, Annexure No.11 dated 17.02.2003, Annexure No.12 dated 08.05.2003, Annexure No.13 dated 16.05.2005, and Annexure No.14 dated 23.01.2006. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that Annexure No.5 and the abovementioned annexures are forged documents, however the correctness of Annexure No.6 order dated 23.02.1999 in favour of the Gajendra Singh has not been denied. Learned counsel for the Jal Sansthan, Agra argued that prior to 23.02.1999, the petitioner was working as daily wager class IV employee, hence he was confirmed on the said post by the said order and even thought Gajendra Singh was also working as daily wager class IV employee, however the work of clerk was being taken from him, hence he was regularized on the post of Second Grade clerk. As far as petitioner is concerned no relief can be granted to him. As far as petitioner is concerned no relief can be granted to him. ( Relief claimed through the writ petition is that the respondent no.2 may be directed to pay salary to the petitioner as fixed by its Chairman vide its order dated 21.05.2002 Annexure No.8, of the post of clerk w.e.f. 23.2.1999 with interest). Even if it is held that the order dated 23.2.1999 Annexure No.5 to the writ petition and other orders were in fact issued, petitioner is not entitled to any benefit for the reason that the order dated 23.2.1999 even issued is utterly, illegal and without jurisdiction. The Jal Sansthan is neither a private limited company nor household of the Chairman. Jal Sansthans have been established under Section 18 of U.P. Water Supply and sewerage Act, 1975. They are government instrumentalities. Chairman cannot appoint or remove an employee like a domestic servant. By maximum confirmation could be on the post of class IV. Petitioner or any one else cannot be regularized or confirmed on higher post. However, the Court is of the opinion that the order in favour of the Gajendra Singh is also utterly, illegal for the same reasons. No one claim parity on the basis of an illegal order. As Gajendra Singh is not a party in this writ petition, hence his appointment cannot be cancelled. However, the respondent no.2 is directed to immediately issue show cause notice to Gajendra Singh as to why he should not be reverted to class IV post and after hearing him suitable order must be passed by the Chairman, Jal Santhan, Agra. There is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed with the above direction. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri S.P. Mishra learned Standing Counsel for sending it to the appropriate authority. Sri G.S. Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.2 is also directed to send copy of this order to respondent no.2 promptly.