JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1606 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the decision was taken in Memo No. 666 dated 22.3.2010 issued under the signature of the Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Hazaribagh, by which, the decision taken, was communicated of recall of benefits of 1st Time Bound Promotion/1st and 2nd Assured Career Progression Scheme granted to the writ petitioner with effect from 03.09.1983 and 09.08.1999 on the ground that the writ petitioner has not passed the departmental accounts examination. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder: It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was appointed to the post of Correspondence Clerk on ad hoc basis on 03.09.1973. However, he was appointed on regular basis in accordance with law against a sanctioned vacant post of Correspondence Clerk vide office order as contained in Memo No. 348 dated 15.10.1973. He worked to the satisfaction of all concerned and no complaint of any kind was ever made against him from any corner. No departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the writ petitioner or any criminal cases were ever lodged against him. The writ petitioner along with others was granted regular promotion vide office order as contained in Memo No. 431 dated 24.3.1985. In pursuance to an order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 241 of 1990 dated 30.7.1998, the regular promotion granted to the writ petitioner was cancelled vide office order as contained in Memo No. 525 dated 05.07.1999. However, he was granted the 1st Time Bound Promotion with effect from 03.09.1983 in accordance with law on completion of ten years of successful service. In the meantime, the Resolution No. 660 dated 08.02.1999 was implemented with effect from 01.01.1996 and as per the said Resolution, the Time Bound Promotion granted to the employees were withdrawn and they were placed in the basic scale and as such, the benefit of the 1st Time Bound Promotion granted to the writ petitioner with effect from 03.09.1983 had also been withdrawn. After creation of Jharkhand, the State of Jharkhand introduced the scheme of Assured Progression Scheme vide notification dated 14.08.2002 in terms thereof, if an incumbent not promoted within the period of 12 years, would be granted one higher scale of pay and another upon 24 years, if he has not been promoted. In pursuance to the notification dated 14.08.2002, a meeting of the Circle Establishment-cum-Screening Committee was held on 18.09.2003 and thereafter, in pursuance to the decision taken in the said meeting, the writ petitioner was granted benefit of 1st and 2nd Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 09.08.1989 vide office order contained in Memo No. 2392 dated 12.11.2003. In pursuance to the said decision, the pay scale of the writ petitioner was revised vide office order contained in Memo No. 2750 dated 27.12.2003. Another meeting of the Circle Establishment-cum-Screening Committee was held on 13.08.2005 and there was some rectification in the decision communicated vide office order contained in Memo No. 2392 dated 12.11.2003 with regard to pay scale and the same was circulated vide office order contained in Memo No. 972 dated 19.08.2005. As per Rule 157(3)(G) of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, departmental examination has to be held twice a year on the 2nd Monday of March and September every year or on such other fixed by the Board but it is not being conducted twice in a year, rather it is not even being conducted every year. However, as and when the departmental examination was conducted, the petitioner appeared and he had cleared 1st (final) and 2nd paper (preliminary) on 29.10.1990. It is the further case that the writ petitioner has received a show cause notice contained in Memo No. 153 dated 22.01.2010 issued under the signature of the Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Hazaribagh by which he was directed to file response to the same as to why the benefit of time bound promotion/Assured Career Progression Scheme granted to him without passing the Accounts examination be not cancelled. The petitioner, thereafter, immediately filed reply to the show cause on 11.02.2010 bringing the entire facts of grant of benefit of time bound promotion/Assured Career Progression Scheme to him before the Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Hazaribagh. The petitioner, thereafter, immediately filed reply to the show cause on 11.02.2010 bringing the entire facts of grant of benefit of time bound promotion/Assured Career Progression Scheme to him before the Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Hazaribagh. The petitioner received another show cause notice contained in Memo No. 364 dated 17.02.2010 issued under the signature of Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Hazaribagh but the petitioner once again filed detailed reply to the show cause on 25.02.2010. It is the further case that the respondents did not consider the reply submitted by the writ petitioner and issued an office order contained in Memo No. 666 dated 22.03.2010 under the signature of the Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Hazaribagh communicating the petitioner that a decision has been taken that the 1st benefits of 1st Time Bound Promotion/and 2nd Assured Career Progression Scheme granted to him w.e.f. 03.09.1983 and 09.08.1999 has been cancelled since it was granted without passing the Accounts examination and it was further directed to recover the excess amount paid to the writ petitioner from his salary/gratuity/leave encashment. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the writ petitioner has filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1606 of 2010, but, the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, has quashed the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 666 dated 22.03.2010 passed by the authority concerned, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 3. It appears from the fact as referred herein based upon the pleading made in the writ petition that the writ petitioner was working under the Building Construction Department and while posted in the Building Circle, Hazaribagh, a decision as contained in Memo No. 666 dated 22.03.2010 was communicated, by which, the benefit of upgradation granted w.e.f. 03.09.1983 and 09.08.1999 has been cancelled on the ground that the writ petitioner has not passed the departmental accounts examination. 4. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. S.C.-III appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that the passing of the departmental examination is mandatory in view of the provision as contained under Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, wherein, the specific stipulation has been made that before grant of promotion to the Higher Post, passing of the departmental accounts examination is necessary and she has referred the condition stipulated under Clause 3 of the resolution no. 5207 dated 14.08.2002, wherein, the conscious decision was taken by the State that the eligibility which is required for cadre promotion, is also to be possessed by one or the other employees for the purpose of consideration of grant of upgradation in pay scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. It has been contended that the issue of passing of departmental accounts examination has been held to be mandatory by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court rendered in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 PLJR 262 . The contention, on the basis of the aforesaid premise, has been made that the learned Single Judge has not considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from infirmity and as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Per contra, Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the aforesaid benefit of upgradation since was granted way back, i.e. more than the period of 20 long years, cannot be allowed to be withdrawn that to without following the principle of natural justice. It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge by taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has held the decision so taken by the authority concerned to be not sustainable and accordingly, quashed and set aside, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 7. At the outset, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State that the part of the order by which the decision taken by the authority concerned regarding recovery on the ground of excess payment made is not being questioned, rather, the part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby and whereunder, the direction has been passed holding the writ petitioner entitle for benefit of upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme even without passing the departmental accounts examination, is being questioned in the instant appeal. 8. 8. This Court by considering the aforesaid argument made at Bar is now proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as to whether the passing of the departmental examination before grant of benefit of upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme is necessary or not? 9. The resolution is also required to refer herein that the benefit of time bound promotion was implemented under the 4th Pay Revision Commission, wherein, by way of policy decision, the benefit of upgradation was decided to be given in favour of one or the other employees on completion of 10 years and 15 years of service, i.e. on completion of 10 years of service, the first upgradation and after completion of 25 years of service, the second upgradation. However, the said benefit has been decided to be recalled on the basis of the recommendation of the Fitment Committee, when the 5th C.P.C. has came into being. The State Government, has taken decision under the resolution no. 660 dated 08.02.1999, whereby and whereunder, the benefit which was granted under the time bound promotion scheme, was decided to be rescinded on or after 31.12.1995, however, without making any recommendation by carving out the concept of need based post, as would appear from aforesaid resolution appended as Annexure-4 to the paper book which contains a condition as under paragraph-11 thereof. It appears from the decision so taken as under paragraph-11 of the resolution dated 08.02.1999 that the State Government has taken decision to grant upgradation in the pay scale depending upon the recommendation of the Fitment Committee, for ready reference, stipulation so made as under paragraph-11 of the aforesaid resolution is being referred as under: ^^11- jkT; ljdkj us foÙk foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k&6021 fnukad 18-12-1989 dh df.Mdk 10 vkSj 12 esa mfYyf[kr dkyc) ÁksUufr;ka vkSj Áoj dksfV dh lqfo/kkvksa dks lekIr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gS vkSj os 1-1-1996 ls rFkk mlds ckn bu osruekuksa esa ykxw ugha jgsaxhA ;fn ,slh dksbZ ÁksUufr fu;eksa ds v/khu 1-1-1996 ls igys ns; gks rks ;g nh tk;xh vkSj ekStwnk osrueku esa cdk;s jkf'k dk Hkqxrku flQZ 1 fnlEcj] 1995 rd gh dh tk;xh rFkk mlds ckn ,slh ÁksUufr Lor% lekIr le>h tk;xhA iqujhf{kr osruekuksa esa os osru fu/kkZfjr djrs le; 31-12-1995 ds ckn nh x;h ÁksUufr;ksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk;xkA ;fn 31-12-1995 ds ckn ,slh ÁksUufr;ka nh xbZ gSa] rks bl ÁfØ;k esa ÁkIr ,slh vfrfjDr ifjyfC/k;ksa ds leatu ds Á'u ij fQVesaV dfeVh }kjk ÁksUufr lEcU/kh uhfr;ksa ij vuq'kalk,a fd, tkus ds mijkar fopkj fd;k tk;xkA vko';drk vk/kkfjr in] ds :i fpfUgr in ds fjDr gksus ij ÁksUufr vuqekU; gksxhA vko';drk vk/kkfjr inksa ds igpku ds fy, df.Mdk 12 esa ÁfØ;k fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA** The purpose of making reference of the aforesaid Clause/Condition is that the State Government has taken decision for cancellation of grant of benefit under the time bound promotion which was granted way back in the year, 1983. But when the benefit which was granted under the time bound promotion scheme itself was rescinded by virtue of resolution no. 660 dated 08.02.1999, then where was the occasion for the State Government to take decision for recall of such decision, since, the same was already recalled and the decision was taken by replacing the said benefit by virtue of extending it under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. It appears that the State has taken such decision by recalling the benefit which was granted in favour of the writ petitioner of time bound promotion because of the reason that the writ petitioner has also not passed departmental accounts examination at the time when the benefit of time bound promotion was granted. It appears that the State has taken such decision by recalling the benefit which was granted in favour of the writ petitioner of time bound promotion because of the reason that the writ petitioner has also not passed departmental accounts examination at the time when the benefit of time bound promotion was granted. But the fact remains that when by way of general decision, the same was recalled then there was no necessity to take fresh decision for recalling. The aforesaid benefit of time bound promotion has been replaced vide resolution dated 14.08.2002 as contained in resolution no. 5207, wherein, a condition has been stipulated that the public servant if eligible to get the regular promotion, will only be eligible to get the benefit of upgradation in pay scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, relevant part of the aforesaid condition is being referred as under: ^^3- ¼lkr½ ,ŒlhŒihŒ ;kstuk ds rgr foÙkh; mRØe.k gsrq lkekU; ÁksUufr ekudksa ;Fkk foHkkxh; ijh{kk esa mÙkh.kZrk] mPprj ;ksX;rk dh ÁkfIr vkfn tks HkrhZ ,oa ÁksUufr fu;ekoyh esa fufgr gS] dks ÁkIr djuk vko';d gksxkA 3- ¼nl½ bl ;kstuk ds vUrxZr foÙkh; mUu;u ljdkjh lsod dks mlds lEoxZ ds fy;s fof'k"V :i ls fu/kkZfjr oÙkZeku in J`a[kyk ds osruekuksa esa feysxk vkSj blds fy;s dksbZ u;k in l`ftr ugha fd;k tk;sxkA ijUrq ,dy in ,oa ,sls in@in lewg@lEoxZ ftlesa fof'k"V :i ls in lksiku ugha cus gq, gSa vkSj lh/ks jkT; lsok@lEoxZ esa dqN Áfl) in gh ÁksUufr gsrq o.kkZafdr gSa] muds lEcU/k esa lEc) dk;kZy;@foHkkx }kjk vuqlwph&1 esa fufnZ"V osrueku ds rqjUr ckn okys osrueku esa gh foÙkh; mUu;u fn;k tk;sxkA** Such stipulation has been made on the ground that the criteria for promotion is required to be followed even in the matter of upgradation in pay scale, on the ground that the upgradation is by way of grant of pay scale attached to the Higher Post in the cadre. The condition of passing of the departmental accounts examination is there in the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, wherein, the Rule as contained in Rule 157(3)(J) provides a condition that passing of departmental accounts examination is necessary for grant of cadre promotion, for ready reference, Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 is being referred as under: “(J)(a) Any clerk, who has not passed the preliminary examination in Accounts, will be neither confirmed nor be allowed to cross the efficiency bar. (b) Any clerk, who has not passed the final examination, will not be promoted to the Selection grade. (c) In case of non-availability of senior clerk, finally passed in Accounts Examination, any junior clerk, having passed the final Accounts Examination may be temporarily promoted to the Selection Grade. Provided that the junior clerk temporarily promoted to the Selection grade shall be reverted to the post of clerk if the clerk senior to him passes the final Accounts examination within two years from the date of his first super-session and is promoted with effect from any date within the said two years, otherwise the senior clerk would be treated junior to all the clerks promoted to the Selection grade prior to him.” The requirement to have the departmental accounts examination, was mandatory to be possessed or not, fell for consideration before the Patna High Court rendered in the case of Mohammad Shamsuddin and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1983 PLJR 347 , wherein, the Patna High Court has held that the passing of the departmental accounts examination, as required under Rule 157(3)(J) is not mandatory, reference of the relevant paragraph is being referred herein-below: “10............it has been contended that the posts of selection Grade did not exist when the Boards Miscellaneous Rules 1947 came in existence. Therefore any direction by the Government to the effect that until and unless these petitioners passed examination in accounts they cannot be promoted to the Selection Grade post is quite illegal. I find some force in this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The posts of Selection Grade have been created much after the Board's Miscellaneous Rules 1947 came in existence. When the Board's Miscellaneous Rules 1947, which is statutory rule does not provide or lays down that for promotion to a Selection Grade post passing of examination in accounts is a must, I think the petitioners cannot be called upon the Selection Grade posts it otherwise they are found fit. It is admitted that the Legislature has not framed any rule to regulate the recruitment and condition of service of persons appointed to the public service and post in connection with affairs of this State. Therefore, the provisions of Boards Miscellaneous Rules 1947 which was adopted after independence are statutory and no executive ORDER :can be passed in contravention of those provisions. Therefore, the provisions of Boards Miscellaneous Rules 1947 which was adopted after independence are statutory and no executive ORDER :can be passed in contravention of those provisions. Therefore, the cases of these petitioners for their promotion to the Selection Grade posts have to be considered on merits from the due date without requiring them to pass examination in Accounts.” But, again the nature of provision whether it is binding or not, has fell for consideration before the Full Bench, since, the conflicting views on the issue has come, i.e. in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar (supra), wherein, as per paragraph-16, it has been held that passing of the departmental accounts examination, as required under Rule 157(3)(J) is mandatorily to be passed, reference of paragraph-16 is being referred as under: “16. The result of the above discussion is that the clerks of the Muffasil offices could/cannot be promoted to the selection grade posts without passing final examination in Accounts except during the period between 1.5.80 and 29.3.82. Any promotion due to the clerks during that period, thus, cannot be denied on the ground that they had not passed the said examination.” 10. The law since is already settled that the passing of the departmental examination is mandatory to have the cadre promotion and since, Clause 3 of the resolution no. 5207 dated 14.08.2002 provides that the eligibility which is required to have with the one or the other public servant is also to be followed in the matter of upgradation in the pay scale, therefore, in the matter of upgradation in pay scale also, the passing of the departmental accounts examination is necessary as per the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar (supra). 11. The issue may arise that after carving out the State of Jharkhand, why the judgment passed by the Patna High Court is to be followed. But, as per Section 84 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 that the judgment passed prior to 15.11.2000 will have the binding effect upon the Jharkhand High Court. The judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court is prior to 15.11.2000 as it was delivered on 19.09.2000, therefore, the same binds this Court. 12. But, as per Section 84 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 that the judgment passed prior to 15.11.2000 will have the binding effect upon the Jharkhand High Court. The judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court is prior to 15.11.2000 as it was delivered on 19.09.2000, therefore, the same binds this Court. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner has raised the question by showing the justification of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as per the reference so made at paragraph-6, wherein, the observation has been made which led the learned Single Judge to interfere with the impugned order that such decision after 20 years since was taken without following the principle of natural justice and hence, the same still survives and therefore, the justification of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, cannot be questioned. But, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State, in response thereto, has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the respondent to take the ground that the decision was taken without following the principle of natural justice, since, the show cause notice has been issued, as would appear from Annexure-9 as contained in letter no. 153 dated 22.01.2010 asking the writ petitioner as to why the benefit of upgradation as granted, be not recalled. The reference of reply to the aforesaid show cause has also been made by referring to Annexure-10 dated 11.02.2010. The reference of another show cause notice dated 17.02.2010 has also been made as under Annexure-11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, therefore, submits that once the response has also been given in reply to the show cause then where is the question of taking the ground of not following the principle of natural justice. This Court has considered the content of Annexure-9 which is a show cause notice and furthermore, the writ petitioner has duly replied to the said show cause, as would appear from Annexure-10 dated 11.02.2010, therefore, the observation made by the learned Single Judge so far as it relates to violation of principle of natural justice, according to our considered view, appears to be error on record and as such, said part of the observation is hereby, held to be illegal. Further, argument has been made that the benefit of upgradation was granted way back, i.e. after more than the period of 20 years and as such, the same cannot be recalled. 13. This Court has failed to understand that from where the period of 20 years has come, perhaps, the period of 20 years is being counted from the day when the benefit of time bound promotion was granted, but the benefit of time bound promotion, once has been recalled by virtue of policy decision taken by the State vide memo no. 660 dated 08.02.1999 which was replaced by another resolution no. 5207 dated 14.08.2002, hence, the benefit which was granted so far as upgradation in pay scale is concerned, will be said to apply from the date when such benefit was granted by virtue of resolution dated 14.08.2002. 14. The learned Single Judge perhaps has made reference of 20 long years by taking the decision, as referred in the show cause notice, as to why the benefit of time bound promotion, be not recalled. 15. This Court, on the basis of the resolution no. 660 dated 08.02.1999, is of the view as already referred hereinabove that there was no occasion for the State to ask an explanation for making recovery of the excess payment made under the time bound promotion scheme, since, the same has already been rescinded by virtue of resolution dated 08.02.1999. 16. Be that as it may, since, the writ petitioner has granted benefit of upgradation under Assured Career Progression Scheme by virtue of resolution dated 14.08.2002 and admittedly, he has not passed the departmental accounts examination which is required to be passed in view of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar (supra), therefore, the aforesaid legal position ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge. But, it appears that the State has also failed to discharge his duty in not bringing the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench to the notice of the learned Single Judge and perhaps that is the reason, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact. 17. But, it appears that the State has also failed to discharge his duty in not bringing the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench to the notice of the learned Single Judge and perhaps that is the reason, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact. 17. It is not the case that the State was not provided an opportunity, rather a detailed counter affidavit was filed and as such, while defending the decision of the State it was the deprived duty of the State authority to apprise the Court with the correct facts supported by the legal position but it is the utter surprise to this Court by going through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, there is no reference of Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 or the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar (supra). The State, although has filed affidavit but pointing out the infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, but without taking the aforesaid point in the counter affidavit, however, the same being the legal position, the same is being considered by this Court on the principle that the legal issue can be raised at any point of time even at the stage of Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This Court is further of the view that even if the said ground has not been taken by the State merely on the basis of the aforesaid fact that the legality which has been crept up while granting the benefit of upgradation cannot be legalized. Even accepting what has been observed by the learned Single Judge at paragraph-6 of the impugned judgment that no such decision has been taken after lapse of 20 years then also according to our considered view, the writ petitioner has got no case on the basis of the position of law that if the illegality has been crept up in its inception, the same cannot be legalized due to the subsequent development, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ritesh Tewari and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 677 , wherein, at paragraph-32, it has been held as under: “32. It is settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironical to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits.” Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Another vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , wherein, at paragraph-37, it has been held as under: “37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. [Vide Upen Chandra Gogoi vs. State of Assam, Mangal Prasad Tamoli vs. Narvadeshwar Mishra and Ritesth Tewari vs. State of U.P.].” 18. The illegality, if any, is to be rectified, the moment it came to the knowledge of the authority concerned for its ratification on the principle that the illegality cannot 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 Chaman Lal vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 15 SCC 715 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court taking reference of the case rendered in Basawaraj and Another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 at paragraph-16, held as under: “16. More so, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. More so, 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 vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 : AIR 2014 SC 746 considered this issue and held as under: (SCC p. 85, Para 8) “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. [Vide Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745 , Anand Buttons Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164 , K.K. Bhalla vs. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581 and Fuljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455 ].” 19. This Court, on the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case as per the discussion made hereinabove, is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference. 20. This Court, on the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case as per the discussion made hereinabove, is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference. 20. Accordingly, the part of the order, whereby and whereunder, upgradation in pay scale had been withdrawn on the ground of having not passed the departmental accounts examination, is hereby quashed and set aside. 21. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. 22. In consequence thereof, W.P. (S) No. 1606 of 2010 is partly allowed. 23. The writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1606 of 2010 is dismissed so far as it relates to upgradation in pay scale which has been withdrawn on the ground of having not passed the departmental accounts examination. 24. Interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6748 of 2021 stands disposed of.