JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. Since common issues are involved in these writ applications, therefore, they are being heard together and are decided by this common order/judgment. 2. Essentially, the petitioners, who were working as para-teachers in different schools of the State of Jharkhand, have, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a direction commanding upon the respondents to allow them to appear in the Counseling Process for the selection of Inter-trained Teachers in the Government Primary Schools. 3. The brief facts, as averred in the writ applications, are that the petitioners are all working as para-teachers in different Government Schools under the respondents. Initially, at the time of their joining, they did not have the teachers training certificate. The State Government in order to grant an opportunity of excellence in academics, permitted the employed para-teachers to acquire teachers training certificates from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), New Delhi and the petitioners have acquired the certificate in Diploma in Primary Education (DPE) from IGNOU. It is submitted that as per the Advertisement No. 5/2015, dated 07.07.2015, 50 per cent vacancies are earmarked for para-teachers and 50 per cent are fixed for non-para teachers category. It is further submitted that there is no condition in the Advertisement which prevents a para-teacher from making any application for appointment to the post of Inter trained teachers against the vacancies meant for non-para teacher category. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioners applied for the same under non-para teacher category for the districts of Giridih, Bokaro and other districts. All of them qualified in the process of selection and their names were reflected in 05th and 06th merit list issued by the District Education Establishment Committee, Giridih and Bokaro. It has further been submitted that the petitioners appeared before the counseling body as per the scheduled date i.e. 12.11.2015 and 30.11.2015 for counseling for the 05th and 06th merit list respectively but they were deprived and prevented from counseling on the ground that they are para-teachers. Petitioner nos. 3 to 5 in W.P. (S) No. 6031 of 2015, whose names find mention in the 06th merit list in the District of Bokaro appeared before the counseling body, but, for the reason aforesaid, the petitioners were denied counseling by the concerned authorities. Petitioner nos. 3 to 5 in W.P. (S) No. 6031 of 2015, whose names find mention in the 06th merit list in the District of Bokaro appeared before the counseling body, but, for the reason aforesaid, the petitioners were denied counseling by the concerned authorities. It has further been submitted that as per the relevant Rules of recruitment and the concerned advertisement, it is nowhere provided that an applicant being a para-teacher, but applied under non-para teacher category, shall not be considered for appointment under non-para teacher category. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that various candidates, who had applied under non-para teacher category in the districts of Chatra, Simdega, Khunti and many more districts, have been appointed and working, as such, as on date, therefore, accordingly, the respondents are taking discriminatory view, so far as the present petitioners are concerned, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the relevant rules of recruitment and the concerned advertisement, it no where provides that an applicant being a para-teacher, but applying under non para teacher category, shall not be considered for appointment under non-para teacher category. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners upon being denied counseling, raised their grievances before the concerned authorities, vide their representations dated 29.11.2015, 26.11.2015, 30.11.2015 and 04.12.2015 but, in vain. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the condition adopted in some of the districts in the ongoing selection process after the publication of the advertisement and the procedure adopted in the merit of selection is illegal and impermissible. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the action of the respondents is contrary to the policy and guidelines of NCTE for improvement of academic atmosphere in as much as denial of appointment of the petitioners and appointment of less meritorious candidates under non-para teacher category amounts to dilution of merits and in contravention of constitutional provision of Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. It has further been submitted that the concept of “Quota” by the respondents is completely misconceived and no quota, save and except by way of benefit of reservation under Article 16 (4) can be applied in direct recruitment and any other provision of quota is illegal. It has further been submitted that the concept of “Quota” by the respondents is completely misconceived and no quota, save and except by way of benefit of reservation under Article 16 (4) can be applied in direct recruitment and any other provision of quota is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that where the rules of recruitment is silent on the issue of appointment of para teachers under non para teacher category, the respondents cannot be permitted to read into the Rules any proposition, which is conspicuously absent and rightly so because such a provision would be ultra vires to the Constitution of India. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that as per the advertisement No. 4 of 2015-16 published, in which it has been specifically mentioned that total number of notified vacancy is 696 and amongst the said 696 vacancy quota of working Para Teacher earmarked as 348 i.e. 50 per cent of vacancy and quota of Non Para Teacher Category fixed as 348 i.e. 50 per cent of the vacancy. The said vacancy was notified under Jharkhand Elementary School Teacher Appointment (amended) Rule, 2014 for direct appointment in pursuance to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. It has further been submitted that the District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro and his scrutiny Team kept strict vigil about the matter to ascertain that no Para teacher can be allowed in counseling against the quota of vacancy earmarked for Non Para Teacher category and similarly inter-trained teacher can take part in counseling for the quota of vacancy earmarked for working as Para teacher. It has further been stated that the petitioners have no right to stake claim earmarked for 'Non Para Teacher', 50 per cent post reserved as quota for Non Para Teacher candidates in the other district because of the rule adopted for selection of candidates for recruitment in question provided for a definite and fixed 50 per cent plus 50 per cent quota for the respective classified sources of recruitment, therefore, the petitioners can derive advantage of merit or reservation against the vacancy under 50 per cent quota earmarked for working Para Teacher and they are stopped to derive advantage of vertical or horizontal reservation against the vacancy under 50 per cent quota earmarked for those persons who are Non Para Teacher. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit and has strenuously defended the action of the respondents. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State submitted that the quota and reservation are not the same, and there is an intelligible differentia and clear distinction between them. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State submits that Article 15 (1) and Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India are not applicable in the facts of the instant case. 7. From the rival submissions, the questions, which emerges for determination is as to whether non-selection of para-teachers under non-para-teachers category, is violative of constitutional provisions, when there is no restriction in the advertisement for applying for the post. When in other districts, the candidates under para-teachers category have been allowed to participate meant for non-para teacher vacancies, whether the action of the respondents amounts to hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners are entitled to be extended with parity of treatment. In order to dwell upon the aforesaid proposition, it would be relevant to state here that out of total vacancies, 50 per cent is meant for para-teachers and 50 per cent is meant for non-para-teachers. If the teachers under the para-teachers quota are the candidates under para-teachers category, would be allowed to participate in the counseling meant for non-para-teachers category, then, that would amount to encroach upon the quota meant for non-para-teachers, which would lead to create imbalance and would lead to either excess or shortfall in the quota meant for non-para teachers category and will disturb the equilibrium of the quotas. So far as the vacancies which have been published pursuant to the Jharkhand Elementary School Teachers Appointment (amended) Rule, 2012 (as amended), provides for the sources from which recruitment has to be made, 50 per cent quota has been fixed for working Para Teacher and 50 per cent quota for those persons who are Non Para Teacher. A similar issue, fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5760-5761 of 1999 in the case of K. Durai Sami and another etc.-versus-The State of Tamil Nadu and others. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court has approved/upheld the Government order dated 09.02.1999, which forms the basis for the prospectus issued to confining 50 per cent of the seats in favour of in-service candidates. There also the remaining 50 per cent seats were for open quota. Therefore, the Rules, 2014 about filling up 50 per cent seats were for open quota. Therefore, the Rules in the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2014 about filling up 50 per cent advertised vacant posts from working Para-teachers and remaining 50 per cent advertised vacant posts from non para-teachers and remaining 50 per cent non-para-teachers being similar to the Government Order dated 09.02.1999, being upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is in conformity and consonance to the reasoning of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, in view of Rule 14 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment (1st Amendment) Rules, 2014 and para 16 (v) of the Government guidelines/instructions dated 02.06.2015. Para-teachers having prescribed eligibility and qualification fixed for para-teachers cannot be appointed against vacancies advertised for non-para-teachers and such Para-teachers having prescribed eligibility and qualification fixed for non-para teachers cannot be appointed against vacancies advertised for non-para-teachers. Para-teachers having prescribed eligibility and qualification fixed for para-teachers cannot be appointed against vacancies advertised for non-para-teachers and such Para-teachers having prescribed eligibility and qualification fixed for non-para teachers cannot be appointed against vacancies advertised for non-para-teachers. So far as the contentions of the petitioners that similarly situated candidates who had applied under non-para teacher category in the district of Chatra, Simdega, Khunti and many more have been appointed and working, though such averment has not been controverted in the counter affidavit but any deviation from the quota rule for appointment of others vide quota meant for non-para-teachers cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners, since the petitioners cannot derive any undue advantage from the concept of negative equality and hence, Article 14 will not be attracted. It is a settled principle of law that guarantee of equality before law enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by citizen or Court in a negative manner. If any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals; others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of higher Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality. In other words, equality or equity has no place in case of any irregularity or illegality. The view of this Court gets fortified by the judgment dated 12th May, 2016 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5035-5036 of 2016 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of Kulwinder Pal Singh & Another-versus-State of Punjab & Others, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to, inter alia, hold as under: - “Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equalities. Merely because some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not confer right upon the appellants to claim equality” 8. In view of the submissions made in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for non-para-teachers category, cannot be construed to be unlawful and the challenge of the petitioners to the action of the respondents deserve to be negated. Accordingly, both the writ petitions [W.P. (S) No. 6031 of 2015 with W.P. (S) No. 173 of 2016] sans merit, are hereby dismissed.