ORDER : I.A. No. 7098 of 2023 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 90 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. Heard the parties. 3. Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in the interlocutory application and having no objection on the part of the Respondent State, the delay of 90 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 7098 of 2023 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 330 of 2022 5. The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6107 of 2019 by which the writ petition has been dismissed by refusing to interfere with the office order no. 868 dated 19.03.2019 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand by which the decision regarding the absorption of the writ petitioners along with the consequential benefits, has been decided against the appellants, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 6. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under: (i) The petitioner no. 1 was appointed as teacher vide appointment letter dated 06.12.1984 duly issued by the then Secretary of school management namely Chotu Singh and since the date of his appointment, he was working at Project Girls High School, Markachoo, Koderma which is apparent vide certificate of working experience given by the Principal of the school on 02.12.2002. The name of the petitioner no. 1 also appears in the report of Three Men Committee among the list of teachers working in the school and he has been superannuated in the month of March 2014. (ii) The petitioner no. 2 was duly appointed as teacher in Project Girls-High School, Markachoo, Koderma vide appointment letter dated 07.12.1984 duly issued by the then Secretary of school management namely Chotu Singh and since the date of his appointment, he has been working at Project Girls High School, Markachoo, Koderma. The name of the petitioner no. 2 also appears in the report of Three Men Committee among the list of teachers working in the School. The name of the petitioner no. 2 also appears in the report of Three Men Committee among the list of teachers working in the School. (iii) Inspite of their appointment and working since the year 1984 & 1985, the petitioners were not paid salary for which they met the concerned authorities several times, but no heed was paid to their requests for the payment of his current as well as due arrear salary since other similarly situated teachers have been paid their salaries by them. (iv) Since nothing was done by the respondents authorities, then, having no option, the petitioners preferred writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 1198/2015 before the High Court for the payment of current as well as due arrear salary. The instant writ petition was heard and disposed of by this Court on 01.07.2017 whereby and whereunder it was directed to the respondent authorities to take a fresh decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) The petitioners submitted their representation alongwith copy of the order dated 01.07.2017 vide speed post dated 07.09.2017 before the District Education Officer, Koderma. When no order was passed by the respondent authorities within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order dated 01.07.2017 the petitioners again having no option, preferred contempt case bearing Cont. Case (Civil) No. 36/ 2018 before the High Court. (vi) The respondent authorities submitted their reply rejecting the claims of the petitioners vide office order no. 868 dated 19.03.2019 duly issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi rejecting the claim of the petitioner no. 1 & 2 on the ground of non-fulfilling the criteria of teacher training fixed by departmental resolution no. 1272 dated 25.04.2018 and also on the ground that the petitioner no. 1 to 3 had not worked in the school ever, with all malafide intention, ignoring the appointment letters, attendance sheet & name of petitioner no. 1 to 2 appearing in the report of Three Men Committee. In light of the reply submitted by the respondent authorities, the Cont. Case (Civil) No. 36 of 2018 was disposed of by this Court on 26.04.2019. 1 to 2 appearing in the report of Three Men Committee. In light of the reply submitted by the respondent authorities, the Cont. Case (Civil) No. 36 of 2018 was disposed of by this Court on 26.04.2019. (vii) Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners preferred writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6107 of 2019, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge without interfering with the order passed by the Respondent authorities. 7. It appears from the pleadings made herein that both the appellants herein claim to have been appointed in the school on 06.12.1984 and 07.12.1984 respectively. Admittedly their case are that they at the time of appointment were untrained graduate. The writ petitioners claimed to be given the benefit of absorption irrespective of the fact that they were untrained graduate. Such submission has been made on the ground that the issue has been decided by the full Bench of the Patna High Court that if a candidate who has been inducted in service in the Project Schools even if is not having qualification of trained graduate, such candidate will be absorbed and to be given the pay scale of untrained graduate teacher. But the said benefit has not been given in favour of the writ petitioners, therefore, the writ petitioners preferred W.P. (S) No. 1198 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2017 with a direction upon the Authorities to take a fresh decision within a stipulated period of 2 months in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Abhilasha Jha vs. State of Jharkhand and Others passed in W.P. (S) No. 7220 of 2011 dated 13.03.2014. The authorities concerned passed the order in pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1198 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the claim of the appellants for absorption even though as untrained graduate teacher was rejected by passing the impugned order on 19.03.2019. The aforesaid order has been challenged by filing W.P. (S) No. 6107 of 2019. The authorities concerned passed the order in pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1198 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the claim of the appellants for absorption even though as untrained graduate teacher was rejected by passing the impugned order on 19.03.2019. The aforesaid order has been challenged by filing W.P. (S) No. 6107 of 2019. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the reason assigned in the order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the administrative authority in terms of the order dated 01.07.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1198 of 2015, has rejected the claim of the writ petitioners, based upon the rejection of the candidature of the writ petitioners by the Alam Committee, which was constituted in pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6626-6675 of 2001 dated 03.01.2006 reported in (2006) 2 SCC 545 . The instant appeal is against the said order. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that even though the writ petitioners/appellants are untrained graduate but the right to absorption along with other consequential benefits cannot be denied on the ground that other identical persons have been given the said benefit. It has been contended that even though such pleading was made before the learned Single Judge but there is no consideration as would appear from the impugned order, rather, the learned Single Jude has gone across the order passed by the authority dated 19.03.2019 and by taking into consideration the recommendation of the Alam Committee report, the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid premises submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the facts in the right perspective, since, it is a clear cut case of hostile discrimination as the other identically placed persons have been granted the said benefit but no benefit has been extended in favour of the writ petitioners. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid premises submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the facts in the right perspective, since, it is a clear cut case of hostile discrimination as the other identically placed persons have been granted the said benefit but no benefit has been extended in favour of the writ petitioners. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has defended the impugned order passed by the administrative authority dated 19.03.2019 as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31.03.2022 by making submission that the case of the appellants has been considered by the Alam Committee, based upon the direction passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court by giving a conclusive finding regarding the candidature of the writ petitioners showing therein that writ petitioners are not entitled for absorption, since, there was no document pertaining to their appointment. Further, the reason has been assigned that even though the qualification of trained Graduate was the eligibility criteria but on the date of consideration of the case of the one or the other candidate by the Committee, the appellants were not having the requisite qualification of trained Graduate. 11. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submitted that there was no protest by the appellants before the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding the findings recorded against the appellants/ writ petitioners, rather, the appellants have accepted the said report and now the writ petitions have been filed earlier in 2015 being W.P. (S) No. 1198 of 2015 and subsequent thereto the present one i.e. W.P. (S) No. 6107 of 2019. Learned Single Judge, according to the learned counsel for the Respondent, after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, if has declined to interfere with the impugned order, which cannot be said to suffer from error. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 13. The factual aspect, which is not in dispute in this case is that the writ petitioner admittedly were not trained Graduate at the time of entering into service to perform as a teacher in the concerned school. It is also not in dispute that for induction in service the qualification of trained Graduate was basic educational qualification. 13. The factual aspect, which is not in dispute in this case is that the writ petitioner admittedly were not trained Graduate at the time of entering into service to perform as a teacher in the concerned school. It is also not in dispute that for induction in service the qualification of trained Graduate was basic educational qualification. The appellants although were untrained Graduate but claimed to have been appointed as teacher in the concerned school. The issue of absorption was raised by the appellants along with other similarly situated candidates. The State Government did not accept claim of the appellants for their absorption in service on the ground of not having requisite qualification of trained Graduate. The matter went before the Patna High Court wherein observation was made by the full Bench of the Patna High Court that there may not be any discrimination amongst the candidates who are having Graduate untrained qualification, however, with the direction that the candidates who are not trained, they will be entitled for pay scale of untrained Graduate teacher. Finally the matter went to the Apex Court being Civil Appeal No. 6626-6675 of 2001 in the case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 545 , wherein, in pursuant to the direction passed by the Apex Court at Para 79, a committee under the chairmanship of Sri Syed Mobin Alam, Additional District and Sessions Judge (Retired) was constituted to look into the rival claims of such teachers. Para 79 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court is quoted herein-below: “79. For the said purpose, we are of the opinion that a committee should be constituted for the said purpose.” 14. The Alam committee has considered the case of the writ petitioners along with other and came to a conclusive finding by taking into consideration the fact that the basic educational qualification to hold the post during relevant period of time was Graduate trained. The Alam Committee has not found qualification, so far as the appellants are concerned, said to be possessed by them i.e. Graduate Trained. The said committee, therefore, has not recommended for absorption of their services. The Alam Committee submitted the report to the State Government, which was accepted in entirety but the writ petitioner/appellants herein have not raised any objection regarding adverse decision taken by the Alam Committee. The said committee, therefore, has not recommended for absorption of their services. The Alam Committee submitted the report to the State Government, which was accepted in entirety but the writ petitioner/appellants herein have not raised any objection regarding adverse decision taken by the Alam Committee. The writ petitioners, thereafter has come to this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 1198 of 2015 by taking the ground that other identically placed persons have been granted the benefit even though they were untrained Graduate. The co-ordinate learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 01.07.2017 has directed the authorities to decide the issue by passing a reasoned order. 15. The authorities have passed the order in pursuant to the aforesaid order by rejecting the claim merely relying upon the recommendation of the Alam Committee report where the candidature of the appellants were rejected. The appellants being aggrieved therewith preferred writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6107 of 2019, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 against which the present appeal. The main ground has been taken that the identically placed persons had been granted the benefit of absorption even though they were Graduate untrained. The ground therefore has been made of discrimination said to be hostile in nature and accordingly the plea of violation of Article 14 has been taken. But the learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to dispute the fact about rejection of the candidature of the appellants by the Alam Committee based upon the fact that appellants were not trained at the time of induction in service. The basic criteria of induction in service is also not in dispute, since, the basic educational qualification was Graduation with Training. 16. The authority in pursuant to the direction passed by this Court for consideration by passing a reasoned order has considered the said aspect of the matter and has rejected the claim of the writ petitioners vide order dated 19.03.2019. It appears from the impugned order that the instance of one Abhilasha Jha (supra) was taken therein and while considering the case of said Abhilasha Jha the authorities have passed an order that her appointment was made as untrained lady teacher while the cases of the appellants were under unreserved category for the purpose of absorption as untrained teachers. It appears from the impugned order that the instance of one Abhilasha Jha (supra) was taken therein and while considering the case of said Abhilasha Jha the authorities have passed an order that her appointment was made as untrained lady teacher while the cases of the appellants were under unreserved category for the purpose of absorption as untrained teachers. Further, the case of one Sri Balram Sharan Kushwaha- appellant no. 3 was not for the absorption as teacher, rather, it is on the post of Clerk. It appears from the impugned order that the instance, based upon which the applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been thrust upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, has been taken care of by the authorities while passing the order by distinguishing the case of the appellants with one Abhilasha Jha and Balram Sharan Kushwaha and a decision has been taken by rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners mainly based upon recommendation of the Alam committee report. 17. The law is well settled that if the qualification is prescribed under the rules of recruitment, the same is strictly to be adhered to. There cannot be any relaxation or deviation otherwise the same will defeat Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such deviation will defeat Article 14 for the reason that if any relaxation is given to one or the other candidate, why not the general candidate. Reference is made to the judgment rendered by this Court in L.P.A. No. 83 of 2022 in the case of Punam Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and Others dated 10.08.2023 wherein at Para 31 and the following observations have been made: “31. The law is equally settled that there cannot be any relaxation from the condition otherwise, it will lead to violation of principle of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since, any relaxation to one particular candidate, then the question would be why not to the others, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudullah Khan and Others, AIR 2012 SC 1803 . The relevant paragraphs, paragraph nos. 28 and 29 of the said judgment, are quoted hereunder as: “28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. The relevant paragraphs, paragraph nos. 28 and 29 of the said judgment, are quoted hereunder as: “28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it 11 could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 29. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of respondent No. 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 32. The law is well settled that the condition stipulated in the advertisement is strictly to be adhered to, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and Others vs. Govt. The law is well settled that the condition stipulated in the advertisement is strictly to be adhered to, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and Others vs. Govt. of NCT Delhi and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 548 , wherein, at paragraph-8, it has been held as under: “8.........Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the BEd candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue......” 18. Herein also it requires to be referred that even accepting the plea of the learned counsel for the appellants that the others have been granted such benefits, but the question is if any benefit is granted contrary to the report of the Alam Committee, which has been accepted by the State Government, there is no reason deviating therefrom. If any order has been passed in deviation thereto, the same will have no binding effect and the same cannot be followed. Further, even accepting the fact that some of the persons have been granted benefit then also the law is well settled that Article 14 envisages positive equality and no negative equality. Reference is made to judgment rendered in W.P. (C) No. 4920 of 2016 [Somath Haldar vs. State of Jharkhand and Others], judgment dated 13.06.2019, wherein at Para 10, following observation has been made: “10. Reference is made to judgment rendered in W.P. (C) No. 4920 of 2016 [Somath Haldar vs. State of Jharkhand and Others], judgment dated 13.06.2019, wherein at Para 10, following observation has been made: “10. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits by taking aid of the statement made in the counter affidavit that the settlement made in favour of other persons of the reservoirs who have been allowed to continue with the settlement and the case of the petitioner is likewise, this factual aspect is not in dispute since the Circular No. 4125 has been issued on 17.10.2013 basing upon the provision of Section 126 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 but the question herein would be that if any thing has been done by the State authority which dehores the rule on that ground no relief can be granted to the subsequent person on the basis of the settled position of law that any illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and further Article 14 of the Constitution of India envisages positive equality and not the negative equality as has been held in the cases of Basawaraj and Another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 and Chaman Lal vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2014 SC 3640 , 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 5 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. 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. 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 and Another vs. The Special 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.” 19. This Court, after consideration of the facts stated hereinabove and considering the order passed by the learned Single Judge has found that the learned Single Judge has considered the facts in entirety, more particularly the recommendation of the Alam Committee report whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has found lacking of the minimum educational qualification to hold the post based upon which the claim of the writ petitioners has been rejected. 20. This court is of the view, based upon such finding that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.