Order : T. Nandakumar Singh, J. Heard Mr. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Gurung, learned counsel for the respondents’ No. 1 to 3. 2. The instant writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the WP(C) No. 6446 of 2006 filed by the present writ appellant. 3. The limited prayer sought for in the WP(C) No. 6446 of 2006 filed by the appellant/petitioner is for a direction to the State respondents to regularize his service and also to pay time scale of pay and other service benefits. The learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 20.07.2014 (Judgment and order) made a clear finding that the petitioner’s name has been wrongly included in the list of eligible employees who have been holding sanctioned post and therefore, the Inspector of Schools under misleading circumstances had sent the demand to the Directorate for sanction of his pay and allowances. The learned Single Judge also made a clear finding that the respondent authorities detected that the post held by the petitioner was an excess post over and above, the sanctioned strength and also there was no post for appointment of the appellant/petitioner. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2014 had also discussed the prayer of the appellant/petitioner for extending the negative equality to the appellant/petitioner. The prayer is not granted by the learned Single Judge after consideration of the appellant/petitioner’s case that in the case of similar situated person, the authority had allowed them to enjoy the scale of the sanctioned post. It is well settled that the court is not to allow continuation of illegality. However, the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration of the case at hand, had issued the direction to the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as and when the next vacancies arises in the Grade-IV post. 4. The learned counsel, Mr. R. Choudhury appearing for the appellant/petitioner contended that as the appellant/petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee shall be directed to extend the pay scale of the Grade-IV post to the appellant/petitioner, and this issue is not called for consideration in the present writ appeal. 5. 4. The learned counsel, Mr. R. Choudhury appearing for the appellant/petitioner contended that as the appellant/petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee shall be directed to extend the pay scale of the Grade-IV post to the appellant/petitioner, and this issue is not called for consideration in the present writ appeal. 5. For the foregoing reasons as discussed above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the WP(C) No. 6446 of 2006. Accordingly, the instant writ appeal is not entertained and stands dismissed.