JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ petitions are same they were heard analogously and are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In the present petitions, the petitioners, who are serving as Unarmed Head Constable and Unarmed A.S.I. respectively under the respondent-authorities, have challenged the orders dated 30.09.2009 and 03.07.2010, whereby the respondent-authorities have refused to promote the present petitioners as Police Sub-Inspectors only on the ground that the petitioners are not having the requisite educational qualification for the said post, though the petitioners have cleared the written, physical and the oral tests conducted by the respondent-authorities. 3. For convenience, Special Civil Application No.8311 of 2010 is taken as lead case. Brief facts, which led to the filing of the petition, are as follows: 4. The petitioner was appointed in the Police Department on 07.10.1983. The petitioner is working as Unarmed Head Constable at Patan District and his Buckle No. is 375. On 08.05.2009, the respondents have published an advertisement to fill up 544 posts of Police Sub-Inspector. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for the same and after scrutiny of the documents submitted by the petitioner, the respondent-authorities permitted to appear in the written examination held on 05.09.2009 and 06.09.2009. After successfully completion of the written examination, on 19.09.2009 the petitioner was called for the physical test as well as the oral interview held on 22.09.2009 to 25.09.2009. The petitioner also cleared both –physical test as well as oral interview successfully. 5. Thereafter, the respondent-authorities declared the results of successful candidate wherein the name of the petitioner was not figured and therefore, on 03.11.2009 the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought for details of marks obtained by the petitioner in all the aforesaid three examinations. Apropos the said application, on 03.12.2009 the petitioner received a letter from the Public Information Officer of the respondent-authorities, wherein the marks obtained by the petitioner was disclosed and it was further stated in the letter that as the petitioner is having a qualification of Rashtrabhasha (Hindi) (Ratna), which is not equivalent to the educational qualification approved by the State Government, the Committee had decided to declare the petitioner as disqualified for the post in question. 6. 6. The petitioner also wrote a letter dated 03.11.2009 to the Secretary, Education Department and sought for information under the Right to Information Act, whether Rashtrabhasha Ratna examination is equivalent to the Government approved examination or not. It is the say of the petitioner that the respondent-authorities before declaring the result of the petitioner sought an opinion from the Education Department, State of Gujarat, whether the petitioner is having requisite educational qualification or not and whether Rashtrabhasha Ratna examination is equivalent to the examination approved by the State Government or not. On 30.09.2009 the respondent-authorities sought opinion from the Education Department about the entitlement of the petitioner considering his educational qualification for promotion to the post of Police Sub-Inspector. The Education Department by letter dated 07.10.2009 informed the respondent-authorities that the petitioner is having the requisite qualification. Thereafter, on 14/15.12.2009 the petitioner made a representation to the respondent-authorities narrating all the facts and requested the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Police Sub-Inspector. Petitioner also stated that some of the candidates, who are having the same educational qualification like the petitioner, they are not only appointed to the post of Police Sub-Inspector, but some of them have also retired from the Department as Deputy Superintendent of Police and some are still working. 7. On 03.07.2010 the petitioner received a letter from the respondent-authorities wherein it is stated that Rashtrabhasha Ratna exmination is equivalent to Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), but it is considered only for granting the higher pay-scale benefits for the teacher working with the State Government. Hence, both the aforesaid orders/decisions dated 30.09.2009 and 03.07.2010 have given rise to filing of the present petition and other connected petitions. 8. Learned advocate Mr.Saurabh J. Mehta appearing on behalf of the petitioners of the respective petitions submitted that as per the advertisement, the candidate must have H.S.C. Certificate (12th Std.), while in the present case, it is opined by the Education Department, State of Gujarat, that the qualification of the petitioner is equivalent to graduation and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner is not having the requisite educational qualification, as stated in the advertisement dated 08.05.2009. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that there are so many employees who are working with the respondent-authorities having the same qualifications like the present petitioner – (1) Shri R.A.Patel, who was appointed as Police Sub-Inspector, through the direct recruitment on 22.07.1975, is having the same qualification like the petitioner and he was retired as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 30.06.2008; (2) Shri H.S.Rabari, who was appointed as Police Sub-Inspector, through the direct recruitment on 01.06.1994 is also having the same educational qualification like the present petition and a present, he is working at Shahibaug Police Head Quarters, Ahmedabad; AND (3) Shri B.J.Patel, who is having N.C.C. ”C” Certificate, which is considered as equivalent to B.A. was also appointed as Police Sub-Inspector, through the direct recruitment on 02.11.1981 and at present he is working at Shaher Kotda Police Station, Ahmedabad. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta submitted that in view of the aforesaid fact, it is a clear case of discrimination and, therefore, the action of the respondent-authorities is required to be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta also submitted that when the Education Department of the State Government is of the opinion that the petitioner is having the requisite educational qualification, then, it is not open for the respondent-authorities to differ from the opinion of the Education Department, State of Gujarat, and, therefore also, the action of the respondent-authorities is required to be quashed and set aside. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned advocate Mr.Mehta urged that the present petitions deserve to be allowed. 10. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Soni appearing on behalf the respondent-authorities placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. He has submitted that as per notification dated 27.08.2008 a person should have passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate-Examination (Std. XII i.e. 10+2 pattern) or Secondary School Certificate Examination (Std. XI old pattern) conducted by the State's Secondary and Higher Secondary Examination Board or possess an equivalent qualification recognized as such by the Government. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not eligible for the said post as he does not possess the requisite educational qualification. Responding to the contention of learned advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Soni submitted that Mr.B.J.Patel, who is appointed as Police Sub-Inspector is having “C” Certificate in N.C.C., which was a certificate as equivalent to the graduation at the relevant time. Responding to the contention of learned advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Soni submitted that Mr.B.J.Patel, who is appointed as Police Sub-Inspector is having “C” Certificate in N.C.C., which was a certificate as equivalent to the graduation at the relevant time. So far the case of Shri Hargovanbhai Desai is concerned, he has submitted that the Additional Director General of Police (Armed Unit, Gandhinagar) vide letter dated 17.09.2010 addressed to Commissioner, Ahmedabad, has directed to inquire the case and submit report. Mr.Soni has submitted that a wrong order in favour of other employees will not confer any right to the petitioner as Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality, and any order passed in the favour of the petitioner will amount to perpetuating of illegality. In view of the aforesaid submissions, he has urged that the present petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties for the lis I have also perused the documents on record. 12. The only issue which falls for consideration for this Court is that whether the petitioner who possess the qualification of Rastrabhasha (Hindi) (Ratna) can be said to be equivalent to the qualification prescribed under the Rules prescribed as per the Notification dated 27.08.208. The case of the petitioners will fall under Rule 2(1)(e) of the Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III, Rules, 2008. The same reads as under: “2. Manner of Appointment :- Appointment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III, in the Gujarat State Police Service shall be made either (e) have passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (Standard XII, 10+2 pattern) or Secondary School Certificate Examination (Standard XI old pattern) conducted by the State's Secondary and Higher Secondary Examination Board or possess an equivalent qualification recognised as such by the Government;” 13. Indubitably, the petitioner are possessing the qualification of Rashtrabhasha (Hindi)(Ratna). The reliance placed by the petitioners on the letter dated 07.10.2009 for treating their qualification equivalent to the qualifications prescribed under aforesaid Rules, is misconceived, since, the aforesaid letter is written by the Secretary, Gujarat Secondary and Education Board, Gandhinagar, in the context of teachers in whose case such qualifications are treated as valid. The letter dated 24.01.1977 lays down the list prescribing the purpose and equivalence of various degrees. The letter dated 24.01.1977 lays down the list prescribing the purpose and equivalence of various degrees. At serial no.59, the examination of “Ratna” is mentioned and the purpose stated is “for B.A. and S.T.C teachers pay-scale”. There are various degrees mentioned in the list, which are held to be valid for the recruitment of services in Army, Government service etc. The post in the Police Department does not figure in the “Ratna exam”. Hence, the qualification held by the petitioner of Rashtrabhasha (Hindi) (Ratna) cannot be held be equivalent to the qualifications prescribed under Rule 2(1)(e) of the Rules, 2008, meant for recruitment and promotion to the post of Police Sub-Inspector. 14. It is well settled proposition of law that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality and equality cannot be claimed in illegality. Hence, the reliance placed by the petitioner in the case of Mr.Hargovanbhai Desai cannot come to his rescue, as the respondent-authorities have not endorsed his qualification of Hindi Ratna. 15. The analysis of the aforenoted facts and Rules governing the appointment of the post of the petitioners, supports the case of the respondent-authorities. Hence, the petition, being sans merit, stands dismissed. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Registry to place a copy of this order in each of the connected matters.