JUDGMENT By the Court.—At the outset, Mr. Vijay K. Jaiswal, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent/petitioner submits that he has no objection in case delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned. 2. Accordingly, C.M.Application No. 131712 of 2014 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to hear the matter finally. 4. Heard Mr. Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties and Mr. Vijay K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner. 5. Through the instant special appeal, the State of U.P. (respondents in the writ petition) has assailed the judgment and order dated 11.8.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 5967 of 2013 (S/S) : Raj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P and others, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 11.8.2013 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P., Allahabad, by means of which, the respondent’s representation was rejected. 6. Shorn off unnecessary details the facts of the case are as under : On 20.1.2004, an advertisement was published for appointment on the post of Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.). In pursuant thereof, the respondent/petitioner applied for the post of Constable in 25th Battalion, P.A.C. After due selection procedure i.e. physical test, written test, interviews, medical examination, respondent was selected and recruited as Constable. Subsequently, he was sent for training, which has completed successfully. Thereafter, he joined as Constable in 10th Battalion, Barabanki and was discharging the duties. 7. In the meantime, on the complaints of irregularities in the recruitment of Constable, vide order dated 29.6.2007, the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow directed the respective Commandants, Superintendent of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police to hold fresh medical examination of the recruited candidates and all the aspects on the medical points were to be considered and examined. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 29.6.2007, the respondent was re-examined by the Medical Board constituted under the supervision of the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki, whereupon it was found that respondent was having Colour Blind and the same was reported vide letter/report dated 8.8.2007 by the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 29.6.2007, the respondent was re-examined by the Medical Board constituted under the supervision of the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki, whereupon it was found that respondent was having Colour Blind and the same was reported vide letter/report dated 8.8.2007 by the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki. Thereafter, the Chairman, Regional Medical Board had again examined the eyes of the respondent on 31.8.2007 and the Chairman, vide his letter dated 31.8.2007 has also reported that the respondent was having Colour blind. On receipt of the aforesaid reports, services of the respondent was dispensed with vide order dated 7.9.2007. 8. Against the order dated 7.9.2007, the respondent approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition No. 28199 of 2007, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 23.1.2009 with the direction to the appellants to do re-medical examination of the respondent. In compliance thereof, the medical examination of the respondent was again conducted, in which the respondent was found with Colour Vision Partial Red Green Defective and as such, his claim was rejected vide order dated 11.8.2013. Not being satisfied with the order dated 11.8.2013, the respondent has again approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition No. 2224 (SS) of 2013. 9. In the aforesaid writ petition No. 2224 (SS) of 2013, the order dated 11.8.2013 was not challenged by the respondent and as such, vide judgment and order dated 19.9.2013, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the respondent to challenge the order dated 11.8.2013 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P., Police Head Quarter, Allahabad. In pursuant of the aforesaid liberty, the respondent has preferred writ petition No. 5967 (SS) of 2013. 10. According to the appellants, during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition No. 5967 (SS) of 2013, learned Single Judge, vide order dated 18.7.2013, directed the appellants to file a short affidavit with the report of expert Medical Officer and also indicating therein the difference between “Colour Vision Partial Defective” and “Partial Colour Blind”. In compliance thereof, a report of Medical Expert was sought. In compliance thereof, a report of Medical Expert was sought. In response, a Committee of three experts comprising of Head of the Department of Ophthalmology, Professor and Assistant Professor of the same department, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, was constituted, who, after consultation, has reported vide report dated 8.8.2014 that there is no difference between “Colour Vision Partial Defective” and “Partial Colour Blind”. This report was filed alongwith the supplementary-affidavit. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 11.8.2014 and quashed the order dated 11.8.2013 on the grounds that Annexure S-J annexed with the supplementary-affidavit dated 11.7.2014 shows a list of eight persons including the respondent/writ petitioner, who are suffering with “Partial Colour Blind” but they have been allowed to continue being posted in different districts and as such, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that the respondent being in a similar position is also entitled to continue in service. 11. Hence the instant appeal. 12. Mr. Shobhit Mohan Suhkla, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that as per the Scheme of Government Order dated 24.12.1959, all class of Police Services a defective colour vision as tested on Ishihara’s Plates will constitute a disqualification. As the respondent was having been found to be defective Colour Vision as tested on Ishihara’s Plates, therefore, as per the Scheme of Government Order dated 24.12.1959, the services of the respondent has rightly been dispensed with and his representation has also rightly been rejected. Therefore, Annexure S-J of supplementary-affidavit filed by the respondent in the writ petition having been relied by the learned Single Judge may be in respect of certain incumbents who have been suffering from Partial Colour Blind and have been given appointment yet their appointments being de hors the Rules cannot be a ground for the respondent to seek parity from such persons. 13. Elaborating his submission, Mr. Shukla has vehemently contended that a person who is otherwise not eligible to be appointed in a particular service cannot be permitted to be appointed in the service on the ground of others having been appointed, as parity of a wrong cannot be given by the Court of law. 13. Elaborating his submission, Mr. Shukla has vehemently contended that a person who is otherwise not eligible to be appointed in a particular service cannot be permitted to be appointed in the service on the ground of others having been appointed, as parity of a wrong cannot be given by the Court of law. Further, certain incumbents who have been discharged on the ground they having been found medically unfit, have taken benefit of the interim order passed in litigation arising out of cancellation of appointments made in pursuance of Circular of Director General of Police dated 29.6.2007 in respect of Constable Recruitment 2005-2006 but the said error cannot be in any manner be a ground for the respondent to seek parity. These points have not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. Even no finding on the specific plea of appellants regarding the ineligibility of respondent to be appointed in service has been recorded by the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under appeal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set-aside. 14. Mr. Shukla has also point out that for taking appropriate action in the matter of reinstatement of medically unfit candidates, appropriate directions have been issued to the concerned authorities on 19.12.2014, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary-affidavit. He submits that appropriate order will be passed in the matter of reinstatement of medically unfit candidates, in accordance with law, in near future. 15. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that at the time of recruitment on the post of Constable, the respondent was medically examined, wherein he was found to be fit. Thereafter, he was sent for training and after completion of training successfully, he joined the duties at 10th Batallion, Barabanki. He submits that persons, name of which have been shown in Annexure S-J to the supplementary-affidavit filed in the writ petition on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner, were also having “Partial Colour Blind” and were also medically unfit and their services were also dispensed with alongwith the respondent but they have been reinstated in service. He submits that persons, name of which have been shown in Annexure S-J to the supplementary-affidavit filed in the writ petition on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner, were also having “Partial Colour Blind” and were also medically unfit and their services were also dispensed with alongwith the respondent but they have been reinstated in service. His submission is that since the similarly situated persons were reinstated and writ petitioner’s claim was denied, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order by giving parity of those similarly situated persons. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we are of the view that the services of the respondent/writ petitioner cannot be allowed to continue unless it is shown that services of similarly situated persons are in accordance with law. An illegal action cannot be enforced in the Court of law to seek parity, tracing discrimination in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution. The concept of equity before law is a positive and not negative concept. Illegal appointment made in breach of the recruitment rules cannot be enforced to seek parity. This proposition of law has been settled by the Supreme Court in case Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, AIR 1995 SC 705 , which was reiterated by the Supreme Court in case Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Muncipal Committee, AIR 1996 SC 1175 , holding ; “The guarantee of quality before law is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. To put it in other words, if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, the others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or of the Supreme Court, that the same irregularity or illegality be committed by the State or an authority which can be held to be a state within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, so far such petitioners are concerned, on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been extended to others although in an irregular or illegal manner. Such petitioners can question the validity of orders which are said to have been passed in favour of persons who were not entitled to the same but they cannot claim orders which are not sanctioned by law in their favour on principle of equality before law. Neither Art. 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Art. 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claim are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continuance and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld it must be established by the petitioner that this claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination.” 17. We would like to point out that the Apex Court has repeatedly pronounced that no appointment should be made in derrogation of the procedure prescribed by law. In Dr. M. A. Haque and others v. Union of India and others, (1993) 2 SCC 13, the Supreme Court has held ; “The recruitment rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution have to be followed strictly and not in breach. If a disregard of the rules and the by passing of the Public Service Commission are permitted, it will open a back-door for illegal recruitment without limit. In fact this Court has, of late, been witnessing a constant violation of the recruitment rules and a scant respect for the constitutional provisions requiring recruitment to the services through the public service commission. It appears that since Supreme Court has in some cases permitted regularisation of the irregularly recruited employees, some Governments and authorities have been increasingly resorting to irregular recruitments. The result has been that the recruitment rules and the Public Service Commissions have been kept in cold storage and candidates dicated by various considerations are recruited as a matter of course.” 18. The result has been that the recruitment rules and the Public Service Commissions have been kept in cold storage and candidates dicated by various considerations are recruited as a matter of course.” 18. In the case of J & K Public Service Commission v. Narinder Mohan, AIR 1994 SC 1808 , where the respondents regularised the services of the Doctors in breach of the recuritment rules, while setting aside the appointments, the Apex Court held as under : “The next question is whether the direction given by the High Court to regularise the services of the respondents is valid in Law. It is true that the adhoc appointees have been continuing from 1986 onwards but their appointments are de hors the Rules. Rules prescribe only two modes of recruitment, namely direct recruitment or promotion by selection. As regards the Lecturers are concerned, it is only by direct recruitment. High Court, namely regularisation by placing the service record of the respondents before the PSC and consideration thereof and PSC’s recommendation in that behalf is only a hybrid procedure not contemplated by the Rules. Moreover, when the Rules prescribe the direct recruitment, every eligible candidate is entitled to be considered and recruitment by open advertisement which is one of the well accepted modes of recruitment. Inviting applications for recruitment to fill-in notified vacancies is consistent with the right to apply for by qualified and eligible persons and consideration of their claim to an office or post under the State is a guaranteed right given under Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The direction, therefore, issued by the Division Bench is in negation of Arts. 14 and 16 and in violation to the statutory rules. The PSC cann’t be directed to devise a third mode of selection, as directed by the High Court, nor be mandated to disobey the constitution and the law.” 19. When we examined the instant case in the light of the aforesaid settled legal position, we have found that there is no dispute to the fact that the respondent is suffering from “Colour Vision Partial Red Green Defective”. The Government Order dated 24.12.1959 says that for all class of Police Services, a defective colour vision as tested on Ishihara’s Plates will constitute a disqualification. The Government Order dated 24.12.1959 says that for all class of Police Services, a defective colour vision as tested on Ishihara’s Plates will constitute a disqualification. Therefore, in view of Jagjit Singh (supra) and Gursharan Singh (supra), the respondent has no right to seek parity of those persons, whose recruitment is illegal and de hors the rules. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, erred in giving parity to those persons, whose recruitment are illegal and de hors the Rules. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 20. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 11.8.2014 is set-aside and the writ petition No. 5967 (SS) of 2013 stands dismissed. 21. However, in view of the circular dated 19.12.2014, the appellants are directed to pass appropriate orders in the matter of reinstatement of medically unfit candidates, in accordance with law, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from today. ——————