JUDGMENT 1. - This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 05.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner Radesh Kumar through his legal representatives for quashing the order dated 19.09.2006 has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the pay scale of 950-1680 on compassionate grounds vide order dated 21.07.1997 under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 and the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'). It was stipulated in the appointment order of the petitioner that he shall qualify the type test within six months. Having failed to qualify the type test, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide the impugned order dated 19.09.2006. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants (legal representatives of the writ petitioner) has contended that the writ petitioner was granted only two opportunities to participate in the type test. In the year 2001 he could not take the test as he was ill, while he failed to qualify in the type test conducted in the year 2002. He has submitted that he should have been granted at least three opportunities in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996. He has also contended that two similarly situated employees, namely; Shri Hariom Singh and Shri Omprakash Verma, whose services had been terminated for failure to qualify the type test, were lateron reinstated in service after acceptance of their representatives. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. At the out-set, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996 which reads as under: "9. Procedural Requirement etc.- (1) The procedural requirement for selection such as training or departmental examination or typing test shall not be insisted upon at the initial appointment. The dependent shall however, be required to clear such training or departmental examination or typing test, within a period of 3 years for entitlement for confirmation failing which his/her appointment shall be liable to be terminated. No annual grade increments will be allowed until he/she acquires such qualifications. On acquiring such qualifications annual grade increments shall be allowed notionally from the date of appointment but no arrears will be paid. No annual grade increments will be allowed until he/she acquires such qualifications. On acquiring such qualifications annual grade increments shall be allowed notionally from the date of appointment but no arrears will be paid. Note:- For the purpose of this rule the Head of the Department shall conduct such test every year irrespective of the number of candidates." 6. A bare perusal of the Rule 9 indicates that it is not necessary that the employee clears the type test at the time of initial appointment. Nevertheless, the employee has to clear the type test within a period of three years failing which his appointment is liable to be terminated. The period of three years is the outside limit within which the employee has to clear the type test and it is nowhere provided in the rules that the incumbent has to be granted three opportunities to clear the type test. 7. It is apparent that even though the petitioner could not qualify the type test in the years 2001 and 2002, as per his own averment, yet the type test takes place every year and had the writ petitioner been serious in taking the type test, he could have done so even subsequent to the year 2002 whereat he had been unsuccessful. The writ petitioner has not stated anywhere in the petition that he was willing to take the type test or that he had participated in the type test besides the aforementioned two attempts. Even with regard to the averment of his illness which prevented him from clearing the test in the year 2001, there is no material on record in support thereof. 8. In so far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that two other similarly situated employees were reinstated in service is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. It is evident from the reply filed by the respondents that after termination of services of these two employees, they had represented to the department for grant of another opportunity to clear the type test. They were reinstated in service after the Department of Personnel agreed to provide them another chance to clear the type test. The writ petitioner had been in service from the year 1997 till 2006 and he has not cleared the type test. 9. They were reinstated in service after the Department of Personnel agreed to provide them another chance to clear the type test. The writ petitioner had been in service from the year 1997 till 2006 and he has not cleared the type test. 9. In any event, it is trite that even if two other similarly situated employees have been granted a benefit, the same would not per se be applicable to the petitioner, especially when his case does not fall within the rules and the condition of appointment stipulated in his appointment order about the mandatory requirement of qualifying the type test. The case of the petitioner has to stand on its own legs. It is also well settled that the writ petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the fact that other similarly situated employees may have been reinstated even though their case did not fall within rules as equality is a positive concept and no employee can derive any advantage by pleading equality in the negative. 10. We are, therefore, of the considered view that there is no manifest illegality in the order of the Single Bench dismissing the writ petition. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.Appeal dismissed. *******