JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Sri Anand Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The instant special appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High court Rules, 1952 against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 12742 (M/S) of 2018 (Committee of Management, Kalawati Devi Smarak Mahavidyalaya, Uttam Nagar, Badnapur (Tejwapur), District Bahraich versus State of U.P. & others). 3. The brief facts, for adjudication of the present case, are that the State Government had issued a Government Order dated 04.09.2008 superceding the earlier Government Orders framing a policy for disbursement of grant to private Committees of Management/Institutions for establishment of self finance Degree Colleges in un-served areas. The Government Order provides the eligibility conditions and other modalities for disbursement of grant under the said scheme. The respondent/Committee of Management had applied for the grant under the said Government Order for running science faculty. The respondent was found eligible and, accordingly, a total amount of Rs. 40 lakhs was sanctioned as per the scheme. The grant was to be sanctioned and disbursed in three installments. The first and second installment of Rs.10 lakhs each were sanctioned in the year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 in accordance with the scheme. After completion of the work upto the stage of second installment, the respondent submitted an application for the third installment on 10.08.2016. In pursuance thereof, after necessary correspondence and formalities a recommendation was made by means of the letter dated 16.10.2016 by the Regional Higher Education Officer, Lucknow for sanction of the third installment of Rs. 20 lakhs. In pursuance thereof, the State Government sanctioned the third installment by means of the order dated 24.01.2018. 4. In the meantime, the respondent had applied for affiliation to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University for running science faculty in the college. The respondent was granted affiliation by means of letter dated 29.06.2017 for the session 2017-18 and for a period of three years. On coming to know, the Regional Higher Education Officer recommended for not releasing the third installment of Rs. 20 lakhs by means of the letter dated 21.03.2018 and the same was communicated to the respondent by means of the letter dated 05.04.2018. 5. On coming to know, the Regional Higher Education Officer recommended for not releasing the third installment of Rs. 20 lakhs by means of the letter dated 21.03.2018 and the same was communicated to the respondent by means of the letter dated 05.04.2018. 5. Being aggrieved by non-payment of the third installment, the respondent approached to this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 12742 (M/S) of 2018 challenging the letters dated 21.03.2018 and 05.04.2018. The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit annexing a copy of the letter dated 19.06.2018 written by the State Government to the Director, Higher Education to the effect that the respondent is not completing the conditions of the Government Order dated 04.09.2008 therefore Rs.20 lakhs sanctioned as third installment to the institution be immediately deposited in the State exchequer. The learned writ court after considering the pleadings and hearing the parties disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents, i.e., present appellants to release the third and final installment in favour of the petitioner-Institution, i.e., the present respondent and set aside the orders dated 21.03.2018 and 4/5.04.2018 passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer, Lucknow. Hence the present Special appeal. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that under the Government Order dated 04.09.2008, the respondent/institution was sanctioned the grant for establishment of science faculty under the self finance scheme. The respondent after completion of work upto the stage of second installment, had applied for the third installment and an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs, as third installment, for the proposed science faculty was sanctioned by the State Government by means of the letter dated 24.01.2018. In the said letter, a direction was issued to the Director, Higher Education that the sanctioned amount shall be disbursed only after completion of the required formalities in accordance with the relevant Government Orders with evidence and documents and after being completely satisfied. It was further provided that after second and third installment, a completion certificate shall be received within a period of one year. In compliance thereof, before disbursing the amount, it was incumbent upon the Director to verify as to whether the conditions of the Government Order dated 04.09.2008 are satisfied or not. It was further provided that after second and third installment, a completion certificate shall be received within a period of one year. In compliance thereof, before disbursing the amount, it was incumbent upon the Director to verify as to whether the conditions of the Government Order dated 04.09.2008 are satisfied or not. The Joint Director before releasing the amount came to know that after completion of building and all necessary formalities, the respondent/Committee of Management has been granted affiliation by the University by means of the letter dated 29.06.2017 after completion. Therefore, the payment of the third and final installment cannot be made in view of the specific bar made in paragraph 15 of the Government Order dated 04.09.2008 and, accordingly, he made a recommendation to the State Government for not releasing the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs of the third and final installment and the respondent was also informed about the same by means of the letter dated 05.04.2018. Subsequently, the Government had also directed to deposit the amount of third installment of Rs. 20 lakhs in the State exchequer, as the respondent is not completing the conditions of the Government Order dated 04.09.2008, as it has already obtained affiliation from the University. 7. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the learned writ court had directed the Principal Secretary of the Education Department to submit his personal affidavit in regard to Clause 15 of the Government Order and an affidavit to this effect was filed clarifying the position and purpose of Government Order. But without considering the same and the pleas raised by the appellants, the writ petition has been allowed by means of the impugned order, therefore it is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set-aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent after expenditure of the first and second installment had applied for the third installment on 10.08.2016 and after completing all the required formalities the same was sanctioned by the Government by means of letter dated 24.01.2018. In the meantime, since the third installment was not being released despite completion of all the formalities, respondent had applied for the affiliation to the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia University. In the meantime, since the third installment was not being released despite completion of all the formalities, respondent had applied for the affiliation to the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia University. After completion of all the formalities, the affiliation was granted on 29.06.2017 but the respondents cannot be denied for disbursement of the third installment, merely, because the affiliation was granted by the University. Learned writ court rightly considered the claim of the respondent and held that in fact the purpose of clause 15 is not to give grant to old established colleges. The entire scheme is for putting up the new colleges in an unserved areas. Therefore, if the college is already established or recognized, the same would not be covered by the present scheme. This would be a reasonable interpretation of Clause 15 of the Government Order. Since the institute is established under the aforesaid schemes of the State Government and is already granted the first and second installments, the third and final installment should also be released. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned writ court. He, relying on paragraph 15 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy and others versus Raju through Member, Juvenile Justice Board and another, (2014) 8 SCC 390 , submitted that there was no need to challenge Clause 15 of Government Order dated 04.09.2008 and it has also been read down by Hon'ble Court giving correct interpretation. Therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The facts, to the extent of sanction of Rs. 40 lakhs for establishment of the science faculty under the self finance scheme under the Government Order dated 04.09.2008 and the first and second installments of Rs. 10 lakhs each was disbursed and the third installment was also sanctioned by the State Government by means of the order dated 24.01.2018 but the same has not been disbursed on the ground that the respondent-Institute has been granted affiliation by the University on 29.06.2017, are not disputed. 10 lakhs each was disbursed and the third installment was also sanctioned by the State Government by means of the order dated 24.01.2018 but the same has not been disbursed on the ground that the respondent-Institute has been granted affiliation by the University on 29.06.2017, are not disputed. Therefore the question which falls for consideration by this Court is as to whether after grant of the affiliation by the University, the third and final installment can be paid to the respondent or not in view of paragraph 15 of the Government Order dated 04.09.2008. Paragraph 15 of the Government Order dated 04.09.2008 is reproduced as under: ^^fo'ofo|ky; ls lEc)rk izkIr dj lEcfU/kr ikB;ØEk lapkfyr dj jgs ;k djus okys egkfo|ky;ksa dks mDr vuqnku ;k Lohd`r vuqnku dh 'ks"k /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku ugh fd;k tk;sxkA^^ 11. It is apparent from the letter dated 24.01.2018 issued by the Government that it was sanctioned for the proposed science faculty, while the respondent had already established the faculty and thereafter it was granted affiliation and the classes were going on. While sanctioning the third and final installment to the respondent, the State Government had directed to the Director, Higher Education that the sanctioned amount shall be disbursed only after completion of the required formalities in accordance with the relevant Government Orders with evidence and documents and after completely satisfied. So if the Joint Director found that the respondent is not eligible for disbursement in view of Clause 15 of the relevant Government Order dated 04.09.2008 then he had rightly recommended for non-disbursement of the sanctioned amount. 12. It appears from the letter dated 19.06.2018 written by the Secretary, U.P. Government to the Director, Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad that the respondent is not fulfilling the condition of the Government Order dated 04.09.2008. Therefore, the Government has directed to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs of the third and final installment in the State exchequer and therefore the sanction by means of letter dated 24.01.2018 stands cancelled. The same was brought on record by means of the counter affidavit but it was not challenged. Therefore, once the sanction granted by the Government by means of the letter dated 24.01.2018 stands withdrawn, the same cannot be disbursed to the respondent. 13. The purpose of the Government Order dated 04.09.2008 seems is to encourage the private Management/Institution for opening of self Finance Degree College or subject in unattended (??????) areas. Therefore, once the sanction granted by the Government by means of the letter dated 24.01.2018 stands withdrawn, the same cannot be disbursed to the respondent. 13. The purpose of the Government Order dated 04.09.2008 seems is to encourage the private Management/Institution for opening of self Finance Degree College or subject in unattended (??????) areas. But if the Management/Institution is capable of raising the construction and running the institution then to save the public money to utilize for any other institution of any other unattended areas. The Management/Institutions who, after completion of the college have been granted affiliation by the University are not entitled for the remaining amount in view of paragraph 15 of the Government Order, which specifically provides that the degree colleges who are running the concerned classes after obtaining affiliation from the University or going to start would not be paid the remaining amount of the grant or sanctioned money. 14. Thus, the correct interpretation of paragraph 15 of the Government Order dated 04.09.2008 would be that the degree colleges who are running the concerned classes after obtaining affiliation from the university or going to start, even if approved for grant under the said Government Order, would not be paid the remaining amount of the grant or sanctioned money which is very much clear from it's language and not the interpretation made by learned writ court. The judgment relied by learned counsel is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. In the present case, respondent-college was granted affiliation by the University by means of the letter dated 29.06.2017 therefore the respondent is not eligible for the payment of the third installment in terms of paragraph 15 of the Government Order dated 04.09.2008, even if the same has been sanctioned by the Government. 16. So far as the plea of the respondent that the third installment was sanctioned to some of the institutions even after they were granted affiliation, it would be suffice to say that the negative parity cannot be given that too after the sanction stands withdrawn. It is also settled proposition of law that if any illegality has been done by the appellants, the same cannot be allowed to perpetuate. It is also settled proposition of law that if any illegality has been done by the appellants, the same cannot be allowed to perpetuate. However the Government is required to see that the officers of the Government follow the Rules, regulations and Government orders in its true letter and spirit and any such concession should not be extended dehors the relevant provisions and disbursing the Public Money. 17. We are of the view that an order made in favour of a person/institution in violation of the prescribed procedure cannot form a legal premise to claim parity and a judicial forum and an extraordinary and discretionary power cannot be used to perpetuate illegalities. The Hon'ble Apex court, in the case of State of U.P. versus Neeraj Awasthi, (2006) 1 SCC 667 , has held that if illegality has been committed in the past, it is beyond comprehension as to how such illegality can be allowed to perpetuate. The relevant paragraph 75 is reproduced as under: "75.The fact that all appointments have been made without following the procedure or services of some persons appointed have been regularised in past, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a normal mode which must receive the seal of the court. Past practice is not always the best practice. If illegality has been committed in the past, it is beyond comprehension as to how such illegality can be allowed to perpetrate. The State and the Board were bound to take steps in accordance with law. Even in this behalf Article 14 of the Constitution of India will have no application. Article 14 has a positive concept. No equality can be claimed in illegality is now well- settled. (See State of A.P. versus S.B.P.V. Chalapathi Rao and Others, 1 SCC 724, para 8, Jalandhar Improvement Trust versus Sampuran Singh, (1999) 3 SCC 494 , para 13 and State of Bihar and Others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another, (2000) 9 SCC 94 , para 30]." 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa versus Mamta Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , has held in paragraph 56 that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative parity. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa versus Mamta Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , has held in paragraph 56 that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative parity. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Chandigarh Administration & Another versus Jagjit Singh & another, (1995) 1 SCC 745 , has held that the extra ordinary and discretionary power under Article 226 cannot be exercised for compelling the authority on the basis of such illegal or unwarranted order. The relevant paragraph 8 is extracted as under: "8. We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent authority to repeat the illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the other person is found to be a lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioners' case is similar to the other persons' case. But then why examine another person's case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the Court and seeking the relief. Is it not more appropriate and convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the Court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his case than to enquire into the correctness of the order made or action taken in another person's case, which other person is not before the case nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a course--barring exceptional situations would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in the judicial world. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in the judicial world. (What is the position in the case of orders passed by authorities in exercise of their quasi-judicial power, we express no opinion. That can be dealt with when a proper case arises.)" 20. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents are not entitled for disbursement of the third and final installment. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 21. The special appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 22. The impugned order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned writ court in Writ Petition No. 12742 (M/S) of 2018 is hereby set-aside. 23. No order as to costs.