JUDGMENT : (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) Heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department representing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. N. Lowang, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 4. 2. The petitioners herein, have joined together to assail an order dated 18.08.2023, issued by the Commissioner (Education) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, towards cancelling the appointment effected in respect of each of the petitioners herein and some others as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), as well as against Group-C post. 3. The petitioners herein were initially engaged as Contingency Peon/Contingency Staff and also on ad-hoc basis on fixed pay per month, during the period 2017 to 2021. It is projected that the Contingency services of the petitioners were consequently, regularized during the period 2017 to 2021 by issuing individual orders of regularization to them and they were appointed as MTS. The orders of appointment so issued to the petitioners had a condition that the petitioners herein, in terms of the appointment so effected in their cases, were required to remain on probation for a period of two years. It is further projected that on completion of the probation period of two years, the services of all the petitioners came to be regularized as MTS. The respondent authorities, on finding that the appointments of the petitioners herein have not been effected in the manner required, proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioners, herein, by way of issuance of an order dated 20.08.2021. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 20.08.2021, the petitioners herein, approached this Court by way of instituting WP(C)/315/2021. 4. This Court vide order dated 29.08.2022, on considering the materials available on record and upon hearing the parties to the proceedings, was pleased to interfere with the order of termination issued in respect of the petitioners herein vide 20.08.2021. The orders of termination of the services of the petitioners were so interfered only on the ground that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the termination of their respective services were so effected. The orders of termination of the services of the petitioners were so interfered only on the ground that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the termination of their respective services were so effected. This Court, after having interfered with the orders of termination of the services of the petitioners and directing for reinstatement of their services in their respective posts, had provided liberty to the respondent authorities to dispense with the services of the petitioners, if the authorities are of the view that the services of the petitioners are no longer required. 5. In pursuance to the directions passed by the Court vide the order dated 29.08.2022, the respondent authorities proceeded to reinstate the petitioners herein, against posts from which they were so terminated. After having reinstated the petitioners in their service, in the month of October, 2022, the respondents herein, proceeded to issue individual show-cause notices to the petitioners on 19.10.2022. In the said show-cause notice, it was alleged that the appointment as MTS in respect of each of the petitioners by the then Director of Elementary Education, Itanagar was so made without any lawful selection process. Accordingly, the petitioners were required to show cause as to why their such illegal appointment issued unilaterally and illegally by an incompetent authority i.e., the then Director of Elementary Education, Itanagar should not be nullified and cancelled for all purposes. 6. The petitioners, on receipt of the said show-cause notices, dated 19.10.2022, proceeded to submit their individual replies on 12.02.2023, raising similar contentions. 7. The respondent authorities, on perusal of the reply finding the same to be not satisfactory and holding that their appointments were so made without following the procedure of the recruitment rules holding the field, proceeded to issue the order dated 18.08.2023, cancelling the individual orders of appointment issued to the petitioners and set out in the said order dated 18.08.2023. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the present proceeding assailing the order dated 18.08.2023. 8. Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed herein above, has submitted that the appointment of the petitioners against the post of MTS was done by the competent authority by reckoning the services being rendered by them over a period of time on Contingency/Ad-hoc basis. 8. Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed herein above, has submitted that the appointment of the petitioners against the post of MTS was done by the competent authority by reckoning the services being rendered by them over a period of time on Contingency/Ad-hoc basis. It is stated that the said appointments as MTS, was so done by following the practice that was being followed at the relevant point of time. It was further submitted that the petitioners herein having acquired the status of regular government employee on regularization of their respective services, on completion of the probationary period so prescribed in their respective orders of appointment as MTS, the services of the petitioners could not have been terminated in an summary manner and the respondent authorities ought to have instituted a departmental proceeding against each of the petitioners, herein, before coming to a conclusion at the appointment of the petitioners as MTS, were illegal and was so done in violation of the Rules holding the field. 9. Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the services of the petitioner were terminated, persons similar to the petitioners who were also engaged as MTS and subsequently, regularized in the same manner as was done in the case of the petitioner herein, have been permitted to continue in their respective services and it is only the petitioners herein, who have been picked up for differential treatment. Mr. Son, further submits that in the event, similarly situated persons, who are also projected to be illegal appointees are being permitted to continue in their services, the respondents ought to have also permitted the petitioners herein to continue in their services and accordingly, submits that the impugned order dated 18.08.2023, would call for an interference by this Court. 10. Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department has submitted that the persons identified to be illegally appointed like the petitioners herein, have all been terminated from their respective services. Mr. Tagum, learned counsel by referring to the orders issued in respect of the petitioners herein, as MTS, submitted that the said appointments were made in clear violation of the provisions of the General Arunachal Pradesh Group-C (Non-ministerial), Common Recruitment Rules, 2008 (amended in the year 2011.) Mr. Mr. Tagum, learned counsel by referring to the orders issued in respect of the petitioners herein, as MTS, submitted that the said appointments were made in clear violation of the provisions of the General Arunachal Pradesh Group-C (Non-ministerial), Common Recruitment Rules, 2008 (amended in the year 2011.) Mr. Tagum, learned counsel has submitted that it was the provisions of the said Rules of 2008 (as amended in 2011) that was holding the field when the orders of appointment of the petitioners, as MTS came to be issued by the then Director of Elementary Education, Itanagar. Mr. Tagum, learned counsel also submits that as per the facts projected by the petitioners, the appointments in the case of the petitioners were so effected as Contingency staff during the period 2017 to 2021. Mr. Tagum, learned counsel further submits that on the date the petitioners were so appointed as MTS, none of them had completed the mandated period of 20 years of service as Contingent worker and accordingly, were clearly ineligible for being considered for appointment as MTS. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioners, herein, who were appointed as MTS during the period 2017-2021 were not so appointed in compliance of the provisions of the Rules holding the field at the relevant point of time and the appointments so made in respect of the petitioners herein being admittedly illegal, the interference so made, after due notices were issued to the petitioners, would not call for any interference. 11. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 12. The projected case of the petitioners is that they were initially engaged on Contingency/Ad-hoc basis at a fixed rate per month during the period 2017-2021. The petitioners were thereafter, during the period 2017-2021 in phases, appointed as MTS by the then Director of Elementary Education, Itanagar. 13. It is seen that the appointments so made in respect of the petitioners against the post of MTS, was so made with a stipulation that they would remain on probation for a period of 2(two) years. The petitioners were thereafter, during the period 2017-2021 in phases, appointed as MTS by the then Director of Elementary Education, Itanagar. 13. It is seen that the appointments so made in respect of the petitioners against the post of MTS, was so made with a stipulation that they would remain on probation for a period of 2(two) years. On completion of the probationary period by each of the petitioners, herein, there services came to be regularized as MTS vide issuance of individual orders in respect of each of the petitioners, herein, by the same very incumbent in the post of Director of Elementary Education, Itanagar, who had initially appointed them as MTS. 14. The petitioners in the present proceeding, have not brought on record any materials to demonstrate that their respective appointments against the post of MTS, was so effected after a proper process of selection was so conducted in the matter. The petitioners have also not contended that their such appointments as MTS was so done in exercise of powers under statutory provisions and/or Office order or Executive instructions holding the field at the relevant point of time. 15. It is seen that the petitioners herein were regularized/appointed as MTS workers without considering the cases of similarly situated persons. As stated by Mr. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, the provisions of the said Rules of 2008 (as amended in 2011), mandates that 25% of the Group-C vacant posts would be so filled up by recruitment from serving Contingency staff, who had at the relevant point of time, rendered minimum service of 20 or more years. None of the petitioners had rendered 20 years of service on contingency basis, on the date they were appointed as MTS. 16. At this stage, a notification dated 02.06.2011; issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, is required to be noticed. 17. In terms of the said notification dated 02.06.2011, it was stipulated that recruitment against Group-C post would be so conducted at the district level by a Selection Board/Committee, under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner of the district. Thereafter, the Selection Board shall forward the select list to the Directorate/Head of Department or Head of Office for issue of appointment order. 18. Thereafter, the Selection Board shall forward the select list to the Directorate/Head of Department or Head of Office for issue of appointment order. 18. In the present case, the petitioners have not brought on record any material highlighting holding of any such selection process wherein, they had so participated, leading to their appointments against the post of MTS. Accordingly, it is to be concluded that the petitioners who were Contingent staff, came to be appointed as MTS without there being any selection preceding issuance of such appointment orders in their cases. 19. It is also not disputed that the services of the petitioners were terminated vide an order dated 20.08.2021 and such termination order came to be interfered with by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2022, passed in WP(C)/315/2021 on the ground that such termination of services of the petitioners were so effected without affording to them any opportunity of hearing. The respondent authorities had thereafter, issued individual show-cause notices to each of the petitioners and therein, had contended that their appointment as MTS by the then Director of Elementary Education, Itanagar, was so effected without any lawful selection process. In the said show-cause notices, the petitioners were required to show-cause as to why their illegal appointments issued unilaterally by a competent authority, i.e. the then Director of Elementary Education, Itanagar shall not be nullified and cancelled for all purposes. 20. It is seen that the petitioners herein, had submitted their show-cause replies in pursuance to the show-cause notices issued to them. A perusal of the show cause replies submitted by the petitioners would go to reveal that all the petitioners had raised similar contentions. It is to be further noted that in the show-cause replies, so submitted by the petitioners, they have, with regard to the allegations leveled against them in the show-cause notice, that their appointments were illegal, have only contended that the orders were issued by the authorities and as to whether, the same were fake, fabricated and/or illegal was not known to them and they refrained from making any comments thereon. What is interesting to note is that in the show-cause replies so submitted by the petitioners, there is no averment made that their such appointments against the post of MTS were so made after a process of selection that may have been initiated in the matter. What is interesting to note is that in the show-cause replies so submitted by the petitioners, there is no averment made that their such appointments against the post of MTS were so made after a process of selection that may have been initiated in the matter. The competent authority, on receipt of the said show-cause replies from the petitioners herein, proceeded to consider the same and by concluding that the petitioners were so appointed without following proper procedure, as stipulated under the Recruitment Rules holding the field, proceeded vide order dated 18.08.2023, to cancel the appointment orders issued in respect of the petitioners herein. 21. It is an admitted position that the petitioners herein were initially engaged as Contingent staff/Ad-hoc basis. At the time when the petitioners were so engaged against the post of MTS, there was a specified procedure mandated by the competent authority in the form of a Recruitment Rule, for appointment of such contingency workers, who had the specified length of service as a Contingency employee, against Group-C/MTS. In the writ petition, the petitioners, as noticed herein above, have not contended that their appointment against the post of MTS as effected during the period 2017-2021 was preceded by any process of selection. Accordingly, the appointment of the petitioners against the post of MTS being de-hors the procedure holding the field when such appointment came to be effected in respect of each of the petitioners, it can be safely concluded that the appointment of the petitioners as MTS were illegal. 22. The appointment of the petitioners as MTS workers being concluded by this Court to be illegal and de-hors the procedure mandated in this connection, the subsequent regularization of the services of the petitioners on completion of their respective probationary periods, being regularization of an illegal order, the same would be of no consequence. Accordingly, the regularization orders of the petitioners are also to be held illegal. 23. Having arrived at the above conclusions, with regard to the nature of appointment of the petitioners and the same having been concluded to be illegal, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that persons similarly appointed like the petitioners, as MTS worker, which has been also projected to have been done illegally, being permitted to continue in their respective services, the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners as MTS to be discriminatory, is being considered. 24. 24. At the outset, it is to be noted that the parity that is being sought to be drawn by the petitioners in the matter, is also with persons who have been projected to be appointed illegally and de-hors the procedure mandated under the Recruitment Rules holding the field. 25. It is a settled position of law that this Court would not issue directions which would have the effect of perpetuating an illegality. Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage of negative equality. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chandigarh Administration Vs Jagjith Singh, reported in 1995 1 SCC 745 , considering a similar plea, had drawn the following conclusions:- “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 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. 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. 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.) 9. Coming back to the facts of this case, if only the High Court had looked to the facts of this case instead of looking to the facts of some other case, we are sure, it would have dismissed the writ petition in view of the several facts stated hereinbefore. The High Court fell in grave error in allowing the writ petition on the said ground and in importing the theory of discrimination in such a situation. Question of discrimination could have arisen only if two findings were recorded by the High Court, viz., (1) the order in favour of Prakash Rani was a legal and valid one and (2) the case of the writ petitioners was similar in material respects to the case of Prakash Rani but she has not been accorded the same treatment. No such findings have been recorded by the High Court in this case.” 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kulwinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors., reported in 2016 6 SCC 532 , with regard to the contentions similar to the one raised by the petitioners, herein, and now being considered by this Court, had drawn the following conclusions:- “16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the other candidates were appointed in the post against dereserved category, the same benefit should also be extended to the appellants. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equalities. In State of U.P. V. Rajkumar Sharma, it was held as under:- (SCC p.337, para 15) “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 of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equalities. In State of U.P. V. Rajkumar Sharma, it was held as under:- (SCC p.337, para 15) “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. Merely because some persons have been grated benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not confer right upon the appellants to claim equality.” 28. The petitioners have prayed that this Court would issue directions to the respondents to continue the petitioners in their respective posts, by maintaining parity with similarly situated persons who have also been projected to have been appointed illegally, however, in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjith Singh (supra) and Kulwinder Pal Singh (supra), such prayer of the petitioners would not merit acceptance. The extra ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such purpose. This Court, in the event of accepting the prayer of the petitioners for a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue in their services, would be perpetuating an illegality, which is impermissible. Accepting such claim would be prejudicial to interest of law and would cause incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners for a direction for their continuance in service by maintaining parity with other illegal appointees, continuing in service, stands rejected. 29. In view of the above discussions and the conclusions drawn, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 18.08.2023, would not call for any interference and accordingly, the same is upheld. 30. Having upheld the order dated 18.08.2023, it is provided that the respondents shall consider as to whether it is permissible to continue the petitioners as Contingent workers. For the said purpose, the petitioners shall submit individual representation before the Director of Elementary Education, Arunachal Pradesh. 31. 30. Having upheld the order dated 18.08.2023, it is provided that the respondents shall consider as to whether it is permissible to continue the petitioners as Contingent workers. For the said purpose, the petitioners shall submit individual representation before the Director of Elementary Education, Arunachal Pradesh. 31. In the event of receipt of any such representation from all or any of the petitioners, praying for continuance of their engagement on contingency basis, the Director, Elementary Education, Arunachal Pradesh; shall consider the same and if it is found that all or any of the petitioners can be engaged on contingency basis, shall after receiving approval for the same from the Government, proceed to engage any or all the petitioners, as per need existing, as Contingent worker. 32. In view of the above, subject to the consideration directed to be made for continuation of all or any of the petitioners, as Contingent staff, the writ petition stand dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.