JUDGMENT & ORDER : AM.BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Ms. U Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and also Mr. JP Das, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. All the respondents had earlier served as porters in the New Missamari Railway Station under the NF Railway by obtaining the required license from the Railway authorities upon payment of the license fees, for different periods. The facts leading to the writ petition is that the respondents after having worked as porters for certain period of time, respectively, they had subsequently discontinued to do so. As a result of such discontinuation the respective license granted to them also stood expired due to non-renewal. 3. The Railway Board had issued a communication dated 01.04.2008 addressed to the General Managers of all the segments of the Indian Railways by providing that, pursuant to the announcement of the Railway Minister in the Budget speech for the year 2008-2009, it was decided that as a one-time measure, all the licensed porters, who are between the age group of 18 years and 50 years as on 26.02.2008, may be appointed to the posts of Gangman, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions stated therein. One of the conditions was that only those licensed porters would be considered for appointment, who possessed a valid license as on 26.02.2008. Subsequently, another communication dated 09.04.2008 was issued by the authorities of the NF Railway, which provided that the entire exercise of appointment of Gangman pursuant to the communication dated 01.04.2008 be completed within 30.05.2008. 4. It is the case of the petitioner Railway authorities that all such porters who had a valid license as on 30.05.2008 were considered for the purpose of appointment of Gangman and even such porters whose licenses were not valid or not renewed up to 26.02.2008, but were subsequently renewed before 30.05.2008 were also considered and given appointment as Gangman. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present respondents preferred an original application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati (for short, CAT), inter alia, claiming for a direction that they be appointed as Gangman pursuant to the said communication dated 01.04.2008. Two communications of the petitioner Railway authorities dated 02.06.2010 and 16.07.2010, were assailed, wherein the claim of the respondents for appointment as Gangman were rejected on the ground that the said decision contained in the communication dated 01.04.2008 was a one-time measure. 6. Two communications of the petitioner Railway authorities dated 02.06.2010 and 16.07.2010, were assailed, wherein the claim of the respondents for appointment as Gangman were rejected on the ground that the said decision contained in the communication dated 01.04.2008 was a one-time measure. 6. A stand was taken in the original application that by a communication dated 09.04.2010 of the Station Superintendent, New Missamari Railway Station, the Senior Divisional Manager of Rangia Sub-Division was informed that the name of the applicants, were not forwarded at the time of consideration of the appointment, as the authority was not aware of its requirement, as a result of which, the applicants were deprived. The respondents, accordingly, sought to make out a case that their cases for appointment as Gangman were not considered because of the fault of the petitioner Railway authorities. 7. A further stand was taken that three similarly situated persons, namely, Mahadeo Roy, Dukshit Roy and Ram Chandra Roy, who were also licensed porters of New Missamari Railway Station, and discontinued to be porters for a considerably long period of time, like that of the respondents, and also did not have a valid porters licenses as on 26.02.2008, but were renewed subsequently, were appointed as Gangman. Accordingly, the respondents also sought to make out a case that the respondents have been discriminated. 8. The learned CAT by its judgment and order dated 26.08.2015 had allowed the original application numbered as OA No.040/00164/2014. By the said judgment, the learned CAT took the view that as revealed from the communication dated 09.04.2010, the case of the respondents for appointment as Gangman were not given a consideration as the required information was not forwarded by the Station Superintendent of New Missamari Railway Station. The learned CAT rejected the contention of the petitioner Railway authorities that the provisions of the communication dated 01.04.2008 was a one-time measure and, hence, the case of the respondents could not be considered any further. A view was taken that the communication dated 09.04.2010, indicates that the particulars of the respondents were forwarded on 02.03.2010 and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner Railway authorities that it was a one-time measure was found to be unacceptable. A view was taken that the communication dated 09.04.2010, indicates that the particulars of the respondents were forwarded on 02.03.2010 and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner Railway authorities that it was a one-time measure was found to be unacceptable. It was held that the plea of it being a one-time measure would have been legally acceptable had the case of the respondents been considered once and found to be unfit as per the conditions contained in the communication dated 01.04.2008. Accordingly, a direction was issued that a Screening Committee as required by the communication dated 01.04.2008 be constituted once again to consider the case of the respondents. 9. The said judgment and order dated 26.08.2015 of the learned CAT in OA No.040/00164/2014 had been assailed in this writ petition by the Railway authorities. 10. The core contention of the petitioner Railway authorities is that the authorities had given a due consideration to all such licensed porters, who had a valid license or had obtained the renewal license up to 30.05.2008, irrespective of any fact as to whether they had continuously worked as porters or they had discontinued to do so upon working as such for some earlier period. 11. It is the case of the petitioner Railway authorities that the present respondents having got their license renewed on 04.06.2008, i.e., after the cut-off date of 30.05.2008, and, as such, did not have a valid porter license on the date of consideration. The Railway authorities had taken a liberal view of the communication dated 01.04.2008, inasmuch as, although the cut-off date for a valid porter license was stated to be 26.02.2008 in the said communication dated 01.04.2008, but by incorporating the period of two months within which the entire exercise of giving appointment was to have been completed, all such licensed porters who had a valid license or had renewed the license up to 30.05.2008 were considered and given appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner Railway authorities takes a stand that the present respondents having renewed their porters licenses on 04.06.2008, did not have a valid license even as on 30.05.2008 and, therefore, they were ineligible as on the last date of consideration. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner Railway authorities takes a stand that the present respondents having renewed their porters licenses on 04.06.2008, did not have a valid license even as on 30.05.2008 and, therefore, they were ineligible as on the last date of consideration. 12. It is the further contention of the petitioner Railway authorities that the three persons, namely, Mahadeo Roy, Dukshit Roy and Ram Chandra Roy, referred by the respondents to make out a case of discrimination had their respective licenses renewed on 24.04.2008 and, as such, on the cut-off date of 30.05.2008, they had a valid license in their favour. 13. The respondents contend before this Court that the communication dated 09.04.2010 of the Station Superintendent of the New Missamari Railway Station leads to an admitted position that the case of the respondents were not considered as the relevant information was not forwarded by the appropriate authority. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondents justifies the judgment and order of the learned CAT and contend that under the communication dated 01.04.2008, the respondents were entitled to at least one consideration for the purpose of being appointed as Gangman and the same having not been done by the petitioner Railway authorities, the respondents are being arbitrarily deprived from being appointed. 14. In the aforesaid premises, a question for determination would be as to whether the respondents were duly qualified for being appointed as Gangman as per the terms and conditions of the communication dated 01.04.2008, as stood impliedly modified subsequently. 15. As noticed, it is an admitted position of the respondents that they discontinued to work as licensed porters for a considerable period of about 6(six) years and, thereafter, got their licenses renewed on 04.06.2008. The petitioner Railway authorities, without any variation, had uniformly applied the criteria that all such licensed porters, who had a valid license or had their licenses renewed on or before 30.05.2008, inspite of the fact whether they had continuously worked as porters or not, were given the appointment as Gangman. 16. In such view of the matter, the respondents having renewed their licenses on 04.06.2008, admittedly, did not have a valid license as on 30.05.2008. 16. In such view of the matter, the respondents having renewed their licenses on 04.06.2008, admittedly, did not have a valid license as on 30.05.2008. Therefore, it is the considered view of this Court that as on 30.05.2008, being the cut-off date, the respondents did not have the required qualification of being appointed as a Gangman as per the conditions laid down in the communication dated 01.04.2008 as stood impliedly modified. In such view of the matter, it is held that no legal right had accrued in favour of the respondents for being appointed as a Gangman pursuant to the decision contained in the communication dated 01.04.2008. As no such legal right had accrued, there also cannot be any corresponding violation of any such right. 17. Having held so, as the case of the respondents were not given due consideration, a further question for determination would be as to whether any purpose would be served by issuing a writ in favour of the respondents, directing the petitioner Railway authorities to comply with the direction of the learned CAT to constitute a Special Screening Committee for considering the cases of the respondents, or such a writ would be a futile writ. 18. The law relating to futile writ had a consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Vs. Vasant and Others, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 124 , wherein in paragraph 5 a submission was recorded that the writ petition was bound to fail on the short ground that none of the petitioners therein could show that they were entitled to be admitted to any one of the seats and, accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that the High Court, while granting the relief, ought to have kept in view that such direction would make the grant of the writ almost futile and, accordingly, the order of the High Court was set aside. 19. Accordingly, in the instant case also, as already held, as the respondents do not have the qualification for being appointed as Gangman as per the adopted cut-off date, pursuant to the communication dated 01.04.2008, any order upholding the direction of the learned CAT to constitute a Screening Committee to consider their cases, would amount to a futile writ, which is impermissible. Accordingly, the judgment and order 26.08.2015 of the learned CAT in OA No.040/00164/2014 is found to be unsustainable. 20. Accordingly, the judgment and order 26.08.2015 of the learned CAT in OA No.040/00164/2014 is found to be unsustainable. 20. As regards the other contention of the respondents that three similarly situated persons, namely, Mahadeo Roy, Dukshit Roy and Ram Chandra Roy were given appointment as Gangman and therefore, the respondents are also entitled to a similar treatment, this Court is of the view that the said contention is also unacceptable. The contention of a similar treatment with other similarly situated persons is a claim of a negative equality, which again is impermissible under the law. Even though similarly situated persons who were also not qualified have been given the benefit of an appointment, the same on its own cannot be a reason that another set of persons who are also not equally qualified be directed to be appointed on the sole ground that some other similar unqualified have been appointed. 21. But in any view of the matter, as already noticed, the said three persons, namely, Madadeo Roy, Dukshit Roy and Ram Chandra Roy had their licenses renewed on 24.04.2008, which was prior to the cut-off date of 30.05.2008, and, as such, on the date of consideration, they had a valid license in their favour. Whereas, on the other hand, the respondents had their licenses renewed on 04.06.2008, which was after the cut-off date of 30.05.2008 and, therefore, as on the said date, they did not have a valid license in their favour. In such view of the matter, the aforesaid three persons namely, Madadeo Roy, Dukshit Roy and Ram Chandra Roy and the present respondents are not similarly situated and, in fact, there is a reasonable classification between the two. 22. In such view of the matter also, no case has been made out by the respondents for sustaining the direction of the learned CAT in its judgment and order dated 26.08.2015 in OA No.040/00164/2014. 23. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioner Railway authorities had made out a case for interfering with the judgment and order dated 26.08.2015 in OA No.040/00164/2014, and, accordingly, the said judgment and order dated 26.08.2015 in OA No.040/00164/2014 is set aside.