JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—Five petitioners have instituted this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the following relief: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent No. 1-U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad, through its Secretary to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, Urdu Language in Junior Basic Schools against the existing advertised vacancies dated 9.1.2016, reserved for Other Backward Caste, within stipulated time, as may be fixed by the Hon’ble Court.” 2. The respondents issued an advertisement dated 09th January, 2016 calling applications for the appointment on the posts of Assistant Teacher (Urdu Language) against 3500 posts. One of the eligibilities for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu Language) reads as under: ^^6& vkosnu gsrq ik=rk%& d& vk;q& ,sls eksvfYye&,&mnwZ mikf/k/kkjh vH;FkhZ] ftUgksaus fnukad 11-8-1997 ls iwoZ ,slh mikf/k izkIr dj yh gks] dh vk;q fnukWad 01 tqykbZ] 2016 dks fdlh Hkh n'kk esa mPpre vk;q lhek vf/ko"kZrk dh vk;q ¼62½ o"kZ ls vf/kd ugha gksuh pkfg, A [k& vyhx<+ eqfLye fo'ofo|ky; ls fMIyksek&bu&Vhfpax mRrh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa ,oa f}o"khZ; chŒVhŒlhŒ mnwZ izf'k{k.k ;ksX;rk/kkjh vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, vk;q 01 tqykbZ 2016 dks fdlh Hkh n'kk esa 21 o"kZ ls de o 50 o"kZ ls vf/kd ugha gksuh pkfg, A 3. The petitioners claim that they fulfill all requisite terms and conditions, and eligible for the posts of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Junior High Schools. It is averred by them in the writ petition that they are Graduate, obtained BTC (Urdu) from All India Talim Ghar, Lucknow and they have also passed Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) meant for Urdu Teacher in any Primary School, and they have been awarded Teacher Eligibility Certificate for Urdu language. The petitioners belong to Other Backward Class. They claim that they have vested right to be considered for appointment on the posts of Assistant Teacher in Urdu Language. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been called for counselling although they possess the essential qualification. It is stated that a similarly placed person had preferred Writ-A No. 8886 of 2014 (Harendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others) and the said writ petition was disposed of by issuing a direction upon the Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow to consider his grievance. It is stated that a similarly placed person had preferred Writ-A No. 8886 of 2014 (Harendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others) and the said writ petition was disposed of by issuing a direction upon the Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow to consider his grievance. In compliance thereof the District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri vide order dated 23rd January, 2015 has appointed one Harendra Singh. A copy of the appointment letter of Harendra Singh is on the record as annexure-8 to the writ petition. 5. The petitioners claim that they are also entitled for the same treatment as a similarly placed person, namely, Harendra Singh has already been appointed who is having same qualification i.e. Urdu Training Course from the All India Talim Ghar, Lucknow. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. 7. Indisputably, the petitioners possess BTC Training Certificate of Urdu issued from All India Talim Ghar, Lucknow. The petitioners have not brought on the record any material to indicate that the All India Talim Ghar, Lucknow is recognized by the State Government to impart/run the said course. 8. The issue regarding recognition of the All India Talim Ghar, Lucknow has been considered by this Court and the writ petition of the candidates who obtained their training certificate from the said Institution, has been dismissed. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, Special Appeal Defective No. 166 of 2016 (Man Singh Gautam and another v. State of U.P. and others), was filed, which has been dismissed on 29th February, 2016, by the following observations: “Both the appellants claim to have passed an Urdu Training Course from the All India Talim Garh, Lucknow and that the said course is equivalent to BTC. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that no material has been shown to indicate that the State Government recognizes the aforesaid degree issued by the All India Talim Ghar as equivalent to BTC. The appellants rely on a communication dated 13 September 1994 of the Secretary in the State Government. The communication, in fact, indicates that such teachers were not to be treated as trained teachers but they will receive the pay scale of an untrained teacher. The appellants rely on a communication dated 13 September 1994 of the Secretary in the State Government. The communication, in fact, indicates that such teachers were not to be treated as trained teachers but they will receive the pay scale of an untrained teacher. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no basis to hold that the course which was undergone by the appellants was treated by the State Government as equivalent to BTC. No case for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge is made out. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 10. From the pleadings of the writ petition, it is evident that entire case of the petitioners is based on the appointment of Harendra Singh, who has been appointed by the District Basic Education Officer in compliance of the order of this Court in Writ-A No. 8886 of 2014. I have perused the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8886 of 2014, wherein this Court on 12th February, 2014 has passed the following order: “Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the learned Standing Counsel with a direction to the respondent No. 1, Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation alongwith the certified copy of this order within 10 days from today before the respondent No. 1, the said respondent shall consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a further period of three months.” 11. From the aforesaid order it is evident that the Court has issued a direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to take decision, however, the District Basic Education Officer, who was not issued any such direction, has issued the appointment letter to Harendra Singh. Moreover, in the order the BSA has mentioned that he is issuing the appointment order in compliance of the order of the High Court, whereas this Court has clearly mentioned that the writ petition is being disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 12. Moreover, in the order the BSA has mentioned that he is issuing the appointment order in compliance of the order of the High Court, whereas this Court has clearly mentioned that the writ petition is being disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 12. From the order of the District Basic Education Officer dated 23rd January, 2015 it appears that he has exceeded his jurisdiction as this Court has not issued any direction to him to decide the matter. Even if assumed that Harendra Singh has been appointed although he does not have essential qualification, no benefit can be extended to the petitioners merely on the ground that an ineligible person has been appointed. 13. It is a sell settled law that by a writ of mandamus a direction cannot be issued to perpetuate an illegality. The petitioner cannot seek negative equality under Article 226 of the Constitution. That negative equality cannot be enforced. Reference may be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and others, (1997) 1 SCC 35 ; State of Haryana and others v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321 and, Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 . Relevant part of the juddgement in Basawaraj (supra) is extracted herein below: “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible...” 14. The case of Harendra Singh is also a classic example how the pliable officer under the garb of consideration of grievance, can pass an arbitrary order and that too without jurisdiction. Accordingly, I direct the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow to hold an enquiry in respect of the order passed by this Court in the case of Harendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 8886 of 2014, how the District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri has decided the matter in spite of the fact that the High Court has directed the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow to consider the cause of the petitioner-Harendra Singh. If the Principal Secretary, is satisfied that the BSA has passed a wrong order and has exceeded his jurisdiction, he shall take decision for taking action against the BSA in accordance with law, within two months after furnishing opportunity to the BSA, under the intimation to the Registrar General of this Court. 15. The Registrar General shall place the order of the Principal Secretary on the record of this case. 16. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 17. No order as to costs. 18. A xerox copy of this order be supplied to the Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for its communication and compliance.