T. Vaiphei, J. -- Having heard Mr. D.K. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. SMT Chisti, the learned standing counsel for the Education Department and Mrs. R.B. Bora, the learned standing counsel for the BTC, I am of the considered view that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Badshah Pair v. State of Assam & ors., 2008 (3) GLT 232, which is affirmed by the Division Bench in its decision dated 25-4-2012 of W.A. No. 175 of 2008. 2. Before proceeding further, the facts of the case may be noticed briefly. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as 2nd Honorary Teacher of Bodo Medium for No. 2, Mestabari L.P. School (“the School” for short) by the Managing Committee of the School on 16-1-1994. Similarly, the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as 2nd Honorary Teacher for the same school on 6-1-1994. The services of both the petitioners were not provincialized at the time of provincialization of the School i.e. 1-8-1995 and they are made to work as dropped teachers till now. Following the decision of this Court in C.R. No. 1571/98 (Jiban Ch. Deka and ors. v. State of Assam), the petitioners also filed WP(C) No. 7143/2005 before this Court, which by the order dated 1-2-2006 disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to place the cases of the petitioners before the Committee constituted by the Chief Secretary for considering their regularization of, or their continuance in service. The cases of the petitioners were thereafter placed before the Committee, but the Committee never informed them about the decision taken by them. The petitioners were informally informed that the services of some teachers, who had not completed two years of services at the time of provincilization, were, however, regularized in the last part of 2011. Aggrieved by such hostile discrimination, they are now approaching this Court again for redressal of their grievance. 3. The contention of Mr. DK Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners possess the requisite qualifications and eligibility laid down in the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Rules, 1977 (“the Rules” for short), and considering the fact that they have been rendering their services since 16-1-1994, they have the legitimate expectation that their services would be provincialized. The contention of Mr. DK Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners possess the requisite qualifications and eligibility laid down in the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Rules, 1977 (“the Rules” for short), and considering the fact that they have been rendering their services since 16-1-1994, they have the legitimate expectation that their services would be provincialized. He further contends that inasmuch as similarly situated teachers, who had not completed 2 years of continuous services at the time of taking over of the school, were provincialized, there is absolutely no reason to treat the petitioners in a different manner: like should be treated alike. He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to issue necessary direction to the respondent authorities to provincialize the services of the petitioners in the post of Assistant Teacher without any further delay. On the other hand, Mrs. R.B. Bora, the learned standing counsel for BTC, submits that there is no question of provincializing the services of the petitioners when Rule 5(3) of the Rules clearly bars their provincilization when they have not even completed two years of continuous service immediately preceding the taking over of the school. She, therefore, submits that there is no merit in the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed. 4. The conditions for provincialization of services of elementary school teachers are provided for in sub-Rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Rules, which reads thus: “(3) The teachers in venture Schools may be retained at the time of taking over if they possess the minimum qualification and age for recruitment provided that such teachers have put in at least two years continuous services immediately preceding the taking over of the School and provided further that the prescribed ratio of students and teacher is maintained in the school.” 5. Thus, the rule extracted above plainly shows, inter alia, that a teacher seeking provincialization of his service must have put in continuous service of two years immediately preceding the taking over of the School. In the instant case, the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 joined the School on 17-1-1994 and 18-1-1994 respectively whereas the School was provincialized on 1-8-1995. The parties are not at issue on the dates of joining of the petitioners to the School. In the instant case, the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 joined the School on 17-1-1994 and 18-1-1994 respectively whereas the School was provincialized on 1-8-1995. The parties are not at issue on the dates of joining of the petitioners to the School. There is also no dispute at the bar that both the petitioners had not completed two years of continuous service at the time of the taking over of the School. It is now virtually a settled position of law on the authorities of Badshah Pair (supra) and Smt. Archana Kumari (supra) that a teacher who has not completed two years of continuous service to his credit before the taking over of the School cannot claim provincialization. On the contention of hostile discrimination also, the petitioners are standing on a sticky ground inasmuch any provincialization of service made contrary to Rule 5(3) of the Rules cannot be used as a precedent by them to claim similar relief, after all, illegal action cannot be used as a precedent to claim similar treatment. 6. The result of the foregoing discussion is that there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.