JUDGMENT (A.M.Sapre, CJ) This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 3406/2012 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 29.04.2014 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants’ writ petition and declined to grant any relief to the writ petitioners (appellants) which they had claimed in the writ petition. So the short question which arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition? The question arose before the writ court as to whether appellants who are working as elementary school teachers were eligible for provincialization of their services. The writ court held and in our opinion rightly that since Rule 5 (3) of the Rules provides for two years continuous services at the time of provincialisation and the appellants had not completed two years and hence they were not entitled to claim the benefit of provincialization. Heard Mr. DK Sarmah, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam and Mr. PN Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education. Also heard Ms. R Borobora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondents. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants (writ petitioners) and on perusal of the record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that this appeal has no merit. This is what was held by the writ court: “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. 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. 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.“ We concur with the aforesaid finding of the writ court because in our view the writ court rightly took into consideration the requirement of Rule 5 (3) and applied the same to the case of the appellants to deny them the relief claimed by them. If the issue is governed by the Rule and if the writ petitioners (appellants) do not comply with the requirement of the Rule then in our opinion, no relief can be granted to the appellants. Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, contended that since similar relief was claimed by other teachers on same facts and it was granted to them, the appellants (writ petitioners) too were entitled to get the same relief alike them. We are afraid; we can entertain this plea. In the first place, no evidence was adduced in support of this submission before the writ court or in the appeal. We are afraid; we can entertain this plea. In the first place, no evidence was adduced in support of this submission before the writ court or in the appeal. Secondly, even if any person was granted the relief on such facts as is claimed by the appellants then also in our view, the appellants (writ petitioners) were not entitled to claim the relief on parity because grant of such relief will amount to perpetuating the illegality in granting relief to others which was dehors the Rules. If anything is found to have been done contrary to requirement of the Rules then it cannot be granted to others only because it was granted to one. A plea of Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to claim negative equality such as the one sought to be claimed herein. A wrong act cannot be cited as precedent to claim parity and nor it creates a right in favour of similarly situated person. This is indeed a settled law laid down by the Supreme Court and no authority is needed to support this proposition. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal, which fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No cost.