ORDER : The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondent to allow the petitioner to appear in the IVth Semester B.Ed. course examination for the session 2017-19. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner has got admission in Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Program in Jharkhand T.T. College, Jhumri Telaiya, Koderma which is affiliated under the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh for 2015-17 session having Registration No.B.Ed.-15172567/2016. The petitioner has appeared in the 1st Semester Examination held on August, 2016 but out of five papers, she could pass only in two papers and the result published on 22.10.2016 by the University and therefore, she was declared to be failed. Thereafter, the session of the petitioner was changed to 2016-2018 and again she had appeared in the 1st Semester Examination held in the month of April, 2017 but she could pass in four subjects out of five and therefore, was declared fail in the result published by the University on 19.06.2017 and as such, the petitioner has again placed in session 2017-19 and appeared in the 1st Semester Examination held in the month of February, 2018 and passed in all the subjects and accordingly declared pass in the result published by the University on 06.04.2018 and thereafter in the 2nd Semester Examination held in the month of August, 2018 but she could have succeeded only in four subjects out of five papers and was promoted in result which was declared on 25.09.2018 and thereafter she has appeared in the 3rd Semester Examination held in the month of February, 2019 but passed in Theory paper-IX B.Ed. TC 301, namely Pedagogy of School Subject Part II (1/2) History and Practicum-B.Ed. P302 School of Internship Report but due to one reason or the other, she could not appear in Practicum-B.Ed. P303 Assessment of Practice Teaching in selected subject. In view of such situation, she could not be able to appear in Viva-Voce Examination, held on 14.06.2019. TC 301, namely Pedagogy of School Subject Part II (1/2) History and Practicum-B.Ed. P302 School of Internship Report but due to one reason or the other, she could not appear in Practicum-B.Ed. P303 Assessment of Practice Teaching in selected subject. In view of such situation, she could not be able to appear in Viva-Voce Examination, held on 14.06.2019. Thereafter, the University has come with the notification for conducting examination for the session 2017-19 but the petitioner has not been allowed to appear in the said examination even in spite of the fact that the requisite fee has been deposited and when she has not been allowed to appear in the examination, she has approached to this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since she has been allowed to appear in the session 2017-19, therefore, her case is fit to be considered by the respondent authority for her appearance in the B.Ed. Course Examination for the session 2017-19 but having not done so, the authorities have committed illegality. 4. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Vinoba Bhave University, has submitted by referring to annexure-5 dated 28.05.2019 annexed to the writ petition, wherein under the head” special” it has been stipulated that the examinee is to complete the B.Ed. course within 3 years from the date of admission, failing which, the course of the candidates and the registration will be deemed to have stopped. According to him, the said decision stipulates that the B.Ed. course in any case is to be completed within a period of three years, meaning thereby, the original session is of two years and if the students could not be able to qualify in the B.Ed. course for the period of two years, in one year grace time, the course is to be completed and that one year time is not supposed to be extended and keeping that position, the petitioner has been given one year grace by showing her student of the session 2016-18 i.e. for the purpose of providing one year grace but even on that period she could not be able to succeed, therefore, there is no question to provide further grace period by presuming the students of the academic session 2017-19 and therefore, the petitioner has got no case for passing any positive direction. 5. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident from the material available on record that the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court to allow her to participate in the B.Ed. Course Examination for the session 2017-19. 6. The admitted position herein is that the petitioner put admission on 04.11.2015 i.e., for the session 2015-16. Session since is of period of two years, therefore, the petitioner academic session was 2015-17. 7. It is evident from the pleading made in the writ petition that the petitioner could not be able to succeed in the course for the academic session 2015-17 and as such she has been allowed to appear in the failed subjects for the academic session 2016-17 but even in that session she could not be able to succeed and now the examination for B.Ed. course, session 2017-19 has been fixed and scheduled to be held 22.06.2019 as contained under annexure-5 upon which much emphasis has been given by the learned counsel appearing for the University which is the document annexed by the petitioner, wherein the specific stipulation has been made that the B.Ed. Course is to be completed within a period of three years, failing which, registration of the candidate of the said session will be deemed to have stopped. 8. This Court, after examining the said stipulation as also the factual aspect, has found that the petitioner has been given period of one year for shifting her for the session 2016-18, however, she has again been shifted to the session 2017-19, on which, the petitioner want to take benefit that once she has been shifted to the session 2017-19, she has got right to participate in the process but the question herein is that if any illegality on any ground or any misconception have committed by any party, can it conferred right upon the petitioner for passing positive direction in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since it is the admitted case of the respondent University that the petitioner has wrongly been allowed to participate as student in the academic session 2017-19. The answer would be that the Article 14 of the Constitution India envisages positive equality and not negative equality, the reason is that if the negative equality would be allowed, the Rule of Law would not prevail and in that situation the illegality would be allowed to be perpetuated which would be against the settled position of law that if there is any illegality which is to be rectified the moment, it came to the notice of the authority so that the illegality may not be allowed to be perpetuated. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 para 8 and Chaman Lal vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in AIR 2014 SC 3640 para 15, which reads hereunder as :- “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 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. 15. Moreso, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. 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. 15. Moreso, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others. This Court in Basawaraj & Anr. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 considered this issue and held as under: “It is settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to …...................................................................................administration impossible.” 9. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the petitioner since has been provided the extended grace period of one year and merely on account of the fact that the second grace period has been provided which does not confer any right upon the petitioner for passing positive direction. 10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, no relief can be granted to the petitioner to participate in the academic session 2017-19 for the reason of specific condition to complete B.Ed. course within the period of three years and in case of un-success registration itself will be stopped. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition fails, and dismissed. 12. However, it is open for the petitioner to make an application for getting fresh registration if that would be done, the competent authority will act as per the Law applicable.