JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Memo No. 1989 dated 31.07.2003 passed by respondent No.3 wherein the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Headmaster has been rejected. 2. This is third writ petition by the petitioner. 3. As per the pleading, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 16.02.1973 and has been granted matric trained scale with effect from 19.05.1973, intermediate trained scale with effect from 30.04.1983 and B.A trained scale with effect from 09.03.1987. The petitioner has superannuated from the service, on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.09.2006. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that junior to the petitioner has been granted promotion to the post of Headmaster, ignoring the claim of the petitioner and as such he has moved to this Court by filing CWJC No. 3774 of 1999(R). The said writ petition has been disposed vide order dated 27.03.1997, giving liberty to the petitioner to file representation and direction upon the respondents to consider the representation upon the petitioner. 5. As per the direction of this Court, the case of the petitioner has been considered and rejected vide order dated 04.11.1997 (Annexure-4). 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed second writ petition before this Court being CWJC No. 3747 of 1999 (R). This Court vide order dated 11.07.2001 had directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order is quoted hereinbelow:- “I, therefore, dispose of this writ application with a direction to the respondents to see that if any person junior to the petitioner has been given promotion to the post of Headmaster ignoring the case of the petitioner then either steps may be taken for his reversion to the post which he was holding or a decision be taken for giving promotion to the petitioner to the post of Headmaster. 7. The respondents shall comply the direction within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”. 8. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the matter has again considered and the same has been rejected by reasoned order dated 31.07.2003 (Annexure-5) and this order has been impugned in the present writ petition. 9. 7. The respondents shall comply the direction within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”. 8. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the matter has again considered and the same has been rejected by reasoned order dated 31.07.2003 (Annexure-5) and this order has been impugned in the present writ petition. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the person junior to petitioner has been given promotion but he has been denied and this is the basic claim of the petitioner. 10. It is relevant to point out that seniority is the basic criteria for grant of promotion. Seniority has to be determined by the competent authority. Determination of seniority by the competent authority is known as preparation of the gradation list and positioning in the gradation list is only material upon which seniority can be claimed. There is no other method of evidencing. Any other material cannot be basis for claiming seniority, save and except gradation list. 11. Inclusion/non-inclusion or wrong positioning in gradation list may be a cause of action for correction of gradation list. But, Seniority has to be considered, as per position in gradation list. 12. In the present case, the petitioner claimed himself to be a senior without reference to any gradation list and as such, the entire claim of the petitioner is based upon the material which is not acceptable to the Court, because seniority can be evidenced only through gradation list and by no other material. Further the petitioner has not claimed on the basis of entitlement, rather on the cases of parity only. 13. Learned counsel for the State has filed a specific counter affidavit and taking clue from the rules which suggests that possession of master degree is sine-qua-non rather eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Headmaster. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess this qualification. 14. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon para-15 of the judgment reported in the case of State of U.P. versus Rajkumar Sharma [ (2006)3 SCC 330 ], which is quoted hereinbelow. “15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. “15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. (1996) 7 SCCC 426; Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain (1997) 1 SCC 35 ; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann (1997) 3 SCC 321 ; Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G, Health Services (1997) 7 SCC 752 ; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh (1999) 3 494; State of Punjab v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal (1999) 9 SCC 240 ; Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi (2003) 3 SCC 548 Union of India v. International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437 and Kastha Niwarak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. President, Indore Development Authority (2006) 2 SCC 604 .)” 15. Counsel for the State has also relied upon para-8 of the judgment of this Court dated 23.06.2016 passed in L.P.A. No. 715 of 2015, which is quoted hereinbelow:- While considering a similar plea, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Vice Chancellor, M.D. University, Rohtak Vs Jahan Singh” reported in (2007) 5 SCC 77 observed as under:- “28. Even assuming the respondent and the said Shri Taneja were similarly situated, we may observe that Article 14 of the Constitution of India carries with it a positive concept. Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked, for perpetuating illegality”. 16. On the strength of above judgment, it has been pleaded by the counsel for the State that parity is positive concept. A person has to show his own entitlement to the relief, if he is entitled under law to get the relief, then mandamus can be issued not otherwise. 17. Further, claim of petitioner has been rejected by impugned order on the ground of non-entitlement (Master degree) and non-inclusion of name in concern gradation list. 18. In view of above, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.