ORDER : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR The present batch of writ petitions except W.P.(S) No. 6112 of 2023 have been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents, in particular Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) to conduct document verification of the petitioners as they were declared successful in the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination (CGTTCE)-2016 held pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016 published by JSSC, but neither call letters inviting them for document verification were issued nor any notice for the same was published in any newspaper due to which they could not appear on the date fixed for document verification. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6112 of 2023 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to conduct document verification of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the subject ‘Sanskrit’ as after being declared successful in the said written examination, he was called for document verification to be held on 31.07.2023, but could not appear due to illness. Further prayer has been made in all the writ petitions for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the concerned subjects and consequently, to issue appointment letters to them. 2. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioners of respective writ petitions is that the petitioners are graduate in the concerned subjects securing more than 45% marks and they possess degree of B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education) or equivalent recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education and as such, they are qualified to be appointed on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Government Secondary Schools of State of Jharkhand in the subjects for which they had applied. The JSSC published Advertisement No. 21/2016 in order to conduct Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam-2016 for making appointment on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Government Secondary Schools of State of Jharkhand in the concerned subjects and the petitioners being eligible candidates, applied for appointment on the said post. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioners were issued Admit Cards and thereafter they appeared in the written test conducted on various dates between 29.10.2017 to 02.12.2017. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioners were issued Admit Cards and thereafter they appeared in the written test conducted on various dates between 29.10.2017 to 02.12.2017. Thereafter, the results were published on the basis of district wise merit list, however, the same was challenged before this Court by filing several writ petitions i.e., W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and other analogous cases (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), wherein vide judgment dated 21.09.2020, reported in (2020) 4 JBCJ 207 (FB) (HC)], the Full Bench of this Court held that reserving the posts by the State for those candidates who were residents of particular districts of the State of Jharkhand was unconstitutional. The said judgment rendered by the Full Bench was, however, challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the light of the judgment rendered in the case “Satyajit Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.” reported in (2022) SCC online SC 954 as well as the orders passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2020 arising out of Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2022 (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. K. Ravi Kumar & Ors.) and other contempt applications, further results were declared by the JSSC on one or other dates, preparing the same on the basis of state wise merit list, which were uploaded only on the website of JSSC and neither individual call letters were sent to the petitioners nor the results were published in any newspaper. 4. It is also submitted that no information whatsoever either through e-mail or message (SMS) was ever sent to the petitioners, though the details of phone numbers and emails were already mentioned in the application forms of the petitioners submitted before the JSSC. Though the petitioners were sent message (SMS)/e-mail to download their respective admit cards, however, they were not sent any such message (SMS)/e-mail for document verification, rather the results were uploaded on the website of JSSC declaring the petitioners successful and calling them for document verification. 5. It is further submitted that in the year 2018, personal informations were given by the respondent-JSSC to the candidates through SMS on their respective mobile numbers with respect to the same selection process. 5. It is further submitted that in the year 2018, personal informations were given by the respondent-JSSC to the candidates through SMS on their respective mobile numbers with respect to the same selection process. However, in the year 2023, pursuant to the judgement/orders rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of “Satyajit Kumar” (supra) and “Soni Kumari” (supra), such procedure was not adopted in the same selection process pertaining to CGTTCE-2016. On perusal of the important notice dated 23.09.2023 published in daily newspaper namely, ‘Prabhat Khabar’, it would be evident that in the same selection process, documents verification took place after proper notice published in the newspaper, however, no such notice was published in the newspaper in the case of the petitioners for the reasons best known to the respondent-JSSC. 6. It is also submitted that on perusal of the press communique dated 28.07.2021 issued by the Examination Controller, JSSC, it would appear that several candidates on being declared successful, were informed about their result through post, however, many of such successful candidates couldn't appear for document verification on the assigned date and time and the respondent-JSSC again provided them opportunity to appear for document verification. It is therefore, apparent that some candidates who were declared successful pursuant to the same advertisement, were informed through registered post but such procedure was not adopted in the case of petitioners for the reasons best known to the respondent-JSSC. 7. It is further contended that the publications of results were done in phase wise manner and for the same subject, different selection lists were prepared on month-to-month basis. In that situation, it was not possible for the candidates to keep checking the website of JSSC on daily basis in order to find their names in the merit list. The methodology adopted by the JSSC resulted into state of confusion and chaos as sometimes two merit lists were prepared on the same day which were published on the website and the candidates were expected to keep on checking the website regularly. The methodology adopted by the JSSC resulted into state of confusion and chaos as sometimes two merit lists were prepared on the same day which were published on the website and the candidates were expected to keep on checking the website regularly. The respondent-JSSC had chosen an unprecedented manner of publishing the merit list of the same subject in a series manner i.e., if a merit list was published in the month of January, it did not mean that the same was the final selection list for a particular subject, rather further merit lists were continued to be published month after month for the same subject. In such a situation, if someone missed his/her name in any of the merit lists and he/she could not appear for document verification, his/her candidature was treated to have ended, which resulted in the candidates of lesser merit occupying the place in the subsequent lists. 8. It is also argued that many candidates were given three opportunities for document verification by publishing results on three occasions and thereafter providing further extensions, but in the case of some of the petitioners, the result was published only once inter alia notifying three dates to appear for document verification, failing which their candidature was to be cancelled. 9. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, as per Clause-16(4)(kh)(ii) of the advertisement, the JSSC has to give adequate opportunity to the concerned candidates for presenting their position before taking decision in the matter of cancelling their candidature. However, in the present case, admittedly neither any notice was issued to the petitioners nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them before ousting their candidature from the purview of selection. Thus, the JSSC itself has not followed the terms of the advertisement. Admittedly, the document verification process is still going on and no prejudice will be caused either to the JSSC or to any other candidate, if the petitioners are allowed to appear for document verification. In the present situation, less meritorious candidates will get appointment at the cost of the petitioners who have scored more marks than those candidates. 10. Admittedly, the document verification process is still going on and no prejudice will be caused either to the JSSC or to any other candidate, if the petitioners are allowed to appear for document verification. In the present situation, less meritorious candidates will get appointment at the cost of the petitioners who have scored more marks than those candidates. 10. It is further submitted that the petitioners came to know about publication of fresh result only in the month of April/May, 2023 and more particularly on or after 17.05.2023, when some of the candidates were handed over the appointment letters by Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand and news relating to the same, was widely published in various newspapers. The petitioners thereafter submitted their respective representations in the office of respondent no. 1 as well as in the office of the respondent no. 3, requesting inter alia to fix further dates for their document verification, however, the same were not responded. The petitioners are running from pillar to post as well as making repeated requests to the respondent no. 3 to fix further dates for their documents verification, as they have been declared successful, however, the said authority failed to take any decision on their representations. The JSSC was duty bound to send the call letters to the petitioners through any mode permissible under law, which was not done in the present case. Merely uploading the results on the website of the JSSC cannot be treated as sufficient information to the petitioners, who are deprived of appearing before the JSSC for documents verification. 11. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC submits that as per the specific terms mentioned under Clause-16(4)(kh)(viii) of the Advertisement, all information relating to examination were to be uploaded on the website of the Commission. The JSSC after receiving online application forms of the candidates decided to conduct the examination on 29.10.2017, 12.11.2017, 19.11.2017, 25.11.2017, 26.11.2017 and 02.12.2017. Accordingly, the Admit Cards of the candidates were uploaded on the website of the JSSC and the candidates were also informed about downloading their Admit Cards from the website of the JSSC. The JSSC after receiving online application forms of the candidates decided to conduct the examination on 29.10.2017, 12.11.2017, 19.11.2017, 25.11.2017, 26.11.2017 and 02.12.2017. Accordingly, the Admit Cards of the candidates were uploaded on the website of the JSSC and the candidates were also informed about downloading their Admit Cards from the website of the JSSC. After conducting the examination on the scheduled dates, time and place in Computer Based Test (CBT) mode, the JSSC published the list of shortlisted candidates for verification of their testimonials and after verification of the same, recommendation for appointment of the successful candidates was made in the year 2019 for scheduled and non-scheduled districts. 12. It is further submitted that as per Notification No. 5938 dated 14.07.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, only local residents of districts namely; Sahebganj, Dumka, Jamtara, Latehar, Ranchi, Khunti, Gumla, Lohardaga, Simdega, East Singhbhum, West Singhbhum and Saraikella-Kharsawan were eligible for appointment in Group-III and Group-IV posts of the district cadre in various department of the concerned districts for a period of 10 years from the date of issuance of the said notification. After commencement of the selection process for appointment of Trained Graduate Teacher in various subjects pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016, notification No. 5938 dated 14.07.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand was challenged before this Court by filing several writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and other analogous cases [“Soni Kumari” (supra)] and vide judgment dated 21.09.2020 passed in the said cases, the Full Bench of this Court quashed the appointments made in the scheduled districts which was subsequently challenged by the appointed candidates of the scheduled districts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022 and other analogous appeals. The said civil appeals were finally disposed of vide judgment dated 02.08.2022. In terms with the judgment rendered in the aforesaid appeals i.e., “Satyajit Kumar” (supra) and the orders dated 02.12.2022 & 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2020 arising out of Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2022 (Soni Kumari & Ors. Vs. K. Ravi Kumar & Ors.) and other analogous contempt petitions, the JSSC started the process to prepare the revised state wise merit list. Vs. K. Ravi Kumar & Ors.) and other analogous contempt petitions, the JSSC started the process to prepare the revised state wise merit list. Thereafter, it also issued list of the shortlisted candidates for verification of the testimonials and published the part result on 17.04.2023 after finalizing the process of documents verification and also making recommendation for appointment of the successful candidates on 18.04.2023. 13. It is also submitted that the names of the petitioners were also shortlisted for verification of their testimonials and the notices regarding the same were uploaded on the website of the JSSC. Moreover, sufficient opportunities were given to them to get their documents verified, however, they failed to appear for documents verification and as such, their candidature were not considered. The petitioners after going through the terms and conditions of the advertisement had participated in the selection process and they were well aware about the terms and conditions of the advertisement/prospectus including Clause-16(4)(kh)(viii) of the same. 14. It is further submitted that publication of notice in the newspaper and sending information on the email of the candidates were not mandatory. It is well settled that after publication of the advertisement, the terms and conditions of the same cannot be changed and the selection process has to be conducted strictly in terms therewith. 15. It is also contended that no right accrued in favour of the selected candidates for appointment on mere inclusion of their names in the select list. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC puts reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Vishal Ashok Thorat & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate & Ors.” reported in (2020) 18 SCC 673 . 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners by filing the present batch of writ petitions have sought direction upon the respondent-JSSC to grant them one more opportunity for documents verification and appoint them on the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in the concerned subjects. 17. A tabular chart containing the details of the petitioners and the respective dates on which they were called for document verification is being given for ready reference in the present batch of writ petitions. W.P.(S) No. 3436 of 2023 Sl. No. Name of Petitioners Roll No. Subject Date of Document Verification and further opportunities 1. 17. A tabular chart containing the details of the petitioners and the respective dates on which they were called for document verification is being given for ready reference in the present batch of writ petitions. W.P.(S) No. 3436 of 2023 Sl. No. Name of Petitioners Roll No. Subject Date of Document Verification and further opportunities 1. Nirmal Pahan 11128122815 Hindi 18.10.2022, 28.10.2022, 14.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 2. Ibrar Ahmad 22123210815 Math & Phy. 02.11.2022, 09.11.2022, 10.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 3. Avinash Prasad 22117208308 English 02.12.2022, 09.12.2022, 13.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 4. Hemant Singh Munda 16141176113 Geography 18.11.2022, 25.11.2022, 13.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 5. Dharmendra Kr. Sharma 14130143304 Bio & Chem. 03.11.2022, 11.11.2022, 10.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 6. Saurabh Kumar 14140148876 Bio & Chem. 04.11.2022, 11.11.2022, 10.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 7. Farhan Quasmi 27116231231 History & Civics 06.03.2023, 10.03.2023, 13.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 8. Santosh Kumar Pandey 20117199800 Sanskrit 17.05.2023, 19.05.2023 & 23.05.2023 9. Satya Pal 26114223237 Phy. Edu. 24.11.2022, 28.11.2022, 14.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 10. Pratibha Nishad 20115198583 Home Sc. 02.05.2023, 04.05.2023 & 08.05.2023 11. Keshav Chandra Jha 22114206565 Sanskrit 17.05.2023, 19.05.2023 & 23.05.2023 12. Suko Kachhap 16132172603 Hindi 19.10.2022, 28.10.2022, 14.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 13. Bhagmaniya Kumari 13114132493 Kudukh 28.02.2023, 03.03.2023, 06.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 14. Pooja Chaturvedi 19134195535 Phy.Edu. 23.11.2022, 28.11.2022, 14.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 15. Mamta Kumari 15121160649 Nagpuri 24.11.2022, 28.11.2022, 09.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 16. Rajesh Sen 23112211600 English 15.05.2023, 17.05.2023 & 19.05.2023 17. Sarfaraj Nawaz 28181267792 History & Civics 14.10.2022, 20.10.2022, 14.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 18. Buland Akhtar Rijwi 22113205736 Economics 06.03.2023, 13.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 19. Anup Kr. Toppo 22123210740 Hindi 19.10.2022, 28.10.2022, 14.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 W.P.(S) No. 3532 of 2023 Sl. No. Name of petitioners Subject Roll No. Document Verification 1. Alka Kumari Home Science 24122217855 02.05.2023, 04.05.2023 & 08.05.2023 W.P.(S) No. 3893 of 2023 Sl. No. Name of Petitioner Subject Roll No. Document Verification 1. Jha Pooja Mahadeo English 28130242509 12.06.2023, 14.06.2023 & 16.06.2023 W.P.(S) No. 4120 of 2023 Sl. No. Name of Petitioners Subject Roll No. Date of document verification 1. Minakshi Kumari Economics 25113219354 06.03.2023, 10.03.2023, 13.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 2. Aneeta Kumari Sanskrit 20118199977 28.06.2023, 01.07.2023 & 03.07.2023 3. Santosh Kumar Gupta Biology & Chemistry 14130143562 03.11.2022, 11.11.2022, 10.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 4. Sushma Bhuinya History & Civics 28180267076 14.10.2022, 20.10.2022, 14.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 W.P.(S) No. 4195 of 2023 Sl. Minakshi Kumari Economics 25113219354 06.03.2023, 10.03.2023, 13.03.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 2. Aneeta Kumari Sanskrit 20118199977 28.06.2023, 01.07.2023 & 03.07.2023 3. Santosh Kumar Gupta Biology & Chemistry 14130143562 03.11.2022, 11.11.2022, 10.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 4. Sushma Bhuinya History & Civics 28180267076 14.10.2022, 20.10.2022, 14.02.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 W.P.(S) No. 4195 of 2023 Sl. No. Name of Petitioners Roll No. Subject Date of document verification 1. Anil Kujur 27118232104 History & Civics 11.10.2022, 20.10.2022, 25.01.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 2. Pranab Kumar Patra 20116199285 Geography 18.11.2022, 25.11.2022, 25.01.2023, 21.03.2023 & 12.04.2023 3. Diwakar Prasad Tiwari 11115114371 Phy. Education 03.03.2023, 06.03.2023 & 10.03.2023 W.P.(S) No. 6112 of 2023 Sl. No. Name of petitioner Subject Roll No. Document Verification 1. Bishnupada Sahoo Sanskrit 26117224869 31.07.2023, 02.08.2023 & 04.08.2023 18. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the petitioners were given personal information through messages on mobile phones/e-mails for downloading their admit cards, the said process was not followed to call them for documents verification, rather the said information was merely uploaded on the website of the Commission. It has also been contended that the petitioners could not appear for documents verification on the scheduled dates due to lack of information. Moreover, in the same selection process, some of the candidates were given personal information to appear for documents verification through messages on mobile phones/e-mails and in some cases, the notices for documents verification were also published in the newspaper, however, in the case of the petitioners, the said process was not followed and thus in the same selection process, the JSSC adopted different methods of circulating information about document verification. 19. The stand of the respondent-JSSC is that the information with regard to documents verification was uploaded on its official website as mandated under Clause 16(4)(kh)(viii) of the advertisement and as such, the petitioners cannot claim that they were not appropriately informed about the dates fixed for document verification. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors.” reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 wherein it has been held that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure and when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors.” reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 wherein it has been held that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure and when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. It has further been held that there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC puts further reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the “State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. G. Hemalathaa & Anr.” reported in (2020) 19 SCC 430 wherein it has been held that strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance and the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot modify/relax the instructions issued by the Commission. 22. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused Advertisement No. 21/2016 whereby the JSSC published advertisement to conduct CGTTCE-2016 for making appointments on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Government Secondary Schools wherein under Clause 16(4)(kh)(viii), it has been specifically provided that all the information related to the said examination shall be uploaded on the website of the Commission. Thus, uploading of any information relating to examination on the website was the mandatory condition and the JSSC was bound by the same. Admittedly, the JSSC has followed the said condition by duly uploading the information for documents verification in its website. All candidates are supposed to be aware of the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement and are also bound by the said conditions. They cannot claim deviation from those conditions on the ground that the same were not feasible. Since it was specifically stipulated in the advertisement that all the communications would be made through official website of JSSC, the candidates were duty bound to check the website at regular interval so as to get information relating to the said examination. It was mentioned in each and every notice for documents verification published on the website of the Commission right from 27.09.2022 that the candidates should see the website of the Commission on regular interval. It was mentioned in each and every notice for documents verification published on the website of the Commission right from 27.09.2022 that the candidates should see the website of the Commission on regular interval. As such, the claim of the petitioners that they had no knowledge of publication of revised result, is not believable. 23. It would be evident from the above-mentioned chart that at least three opportunities were given to the petitioners to get their documents verified. Some of the petitioners were given more than three opportunities, however, they failed to appear for documents verification. I am of the view that since the mode of communication of information stipulated in the advertisement has been duly followed by the JSSC in the case of the petitioners, they do not deserve indulgence on the ground that some of the candidates were given personal information about the documents verification through messages (SMS)/e-mails and newspaper publication. Moreover, on mere ground that personal information for downloading admit cards were given to the petitioners through messages on mobile phones/ e-mails, no legal right is created in their favour to compel the JSSC to provide any subsequent information through personal mode. It is a well settled principle of law that in absence of any legal right, no mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of sympathy. 24. I have perused the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Basanti Kerketta Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.” [W.P.(C) No. 1522 of 2019] on which much reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC. In the said case, the claim of the petitioner was that she lived in remote area where there was no facility of internet due to which she could not appear for document verification as the notice for documents verification could not be communicated to her. The Bench held that a condition inserted in the notice inviting application was binding upon the candidates once they chose to participate in the process. The court further held as under: “10. The Bench held that a condition inserted in the notice inviting application was binding upon the candidates once they chose to participate in the process. The court further held as under: “10. ---- So far as the factual aspect involved in this case is concerned, the advertisement wherein each and everything was to be done on the basis of on-line even the admit card was to be issued on-line and the petitioner with all consciousness has made the application on-line and thereafter the process time was given and as such after failing to appear before the authority for scrutinizing the document, she cannot take the plea at this stage that the communication ought to have been made through post as because once advertisement has been issued specifying the terms and conditions, it is binding upon the parties and once the application has been made in terms thereof, a candidate who has participated in terms of the said advertisement cannot turn around and extent the condition stipulated in the advertisement. ----” 25. I have also perused another judgment of Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of “Anjana Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” [W.P.(S) No. 6204 of 2018]. In the said case, the petitioner was seeking another opportunity for documents verification on the ground of illness, however, the Bench declined to entertain the said request of the petitioner of that case by holding that she had been given ample opportunity to appear for documents verification. 26. I am in agreement with the view taken by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of “Basanti Kerketta” (supra) and “Anjana Kumari” (supra). Sympathy and compassion stay at a distance when careless approach is taken by a candidate. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the judgment rendered in the case of “Basanti Kerketta” (supra) will not apply to the case of the petitioners since the same was passed prior to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Soni Kumari” (supra). I am not convince with the said argument of learned counsel for the petitioners since the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of “Basanti Kerketta” (supra) that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the advertisement will still apply to the petitioners even after passing of the orders in “Soni Kumari” (supra). 27. I am not convince with the said argument of learned counsel for the petitioners since the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of “Basanti Kerketta” (supra) that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the advertisement will still apply to the petitioners even after passing of the orders in “Soni Kumari” (supra). 27. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before cancelling their candidatures and the said action of the JSSC is in deviation from Clause 16 (4)(kh)(ii) of the advertisement. I do not find any substance in the said argument as well since there was no question of granting opportunity of hearing to the candidates as their candidatures were cancelled on the ground of their failure to appear for documents verification. It was stipulated in the notice issued for documents verification itself that if the candidates do not appear for documents verification on the prescribed dates, their candidature would be treated as automatically cancelled. 28. So far the claim of the petitioners that they are more meritorious than the candidates who are being appointed, this Court is of the view that the said claim of the petitioners is also not tenable as the petitioners themselves failed to appear for documents verification on the scheduled dates. 29. The next limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that documents verification process is still continuing and if the petitioners are allowed to appear for the document verification, no prejudice will be caused to any other candidates or to the JSSC. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC submits that after verification of the testimonials of the candidates, JSSC has published the result of the successful candidates for making appointments on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in various subjects on the basis of State wise merit list and thereafter, recommendation for appointment of the successful candidates has also been made to the State Government. In support of the said contention, the JSSC has filed Status Report on 05.01.2024 along with the supplementary counter affidavit and has stated that in some subjects, the process of appointment has already been completed and, in some subjects, there are still few posts to be filled. In support of the said contention, the JSSC has filed Status Report on 05.01.2024 along with the supplementary counter affidavit and has stated that in some subjects, the process of appointment has already been completed and, in some subjects, there are still few posts to be filled. To counter the said argument of learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in respective writ petitions submit that the status report filed by the JSSC is provisional in nature which is written on the top of the said report itself. Moreover, this Court vide order dated 14.09.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4195 of 2023 has specifically observed that any appointment pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016 shall be subject to the outcome of the instant writ petition. 30. Since the process of appointment for some subjects have already been completed, if the petitioners concerning with those subjects are given indulgence at this stage, then some successful candidates will go out of the merit list and in such situation, serious prejudice will be caused to them. If such indulgence is granted to only those petitioners in whose subject the vacancy is still existing, the same would amount to creating a class within class which is not permissible under law. 31. The petitioners have also raised the issue of infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as according to them few candidates have been given notices for documents verification through messages on mobile phones/e-mails or through newspaper publication, however, in the case of the petitioners, the notice was published only on the website of the Commission which amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents. 32. In the case of “State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr.” reported in (2000) 9 SCC 94 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 30. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on the ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on the ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [ (1996) 2 SCC 459 ] held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed: (SCC p. 465, para 9) “Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination.” Again in Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [ (1997) 1 SCC 35 ] this Court considered the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution and reiterated its earlier position regarding the concept of equality holding: (SCC pp. 51-52, para 28) “Suffice it to hold that the illegal allotment founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment made to some other persons wrongly, would not form a legal premise to ensure it to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such illegal order, nor could it be legalised. In other words, judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the illegalities. Thus considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents.” 31. In other words, judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the illegalities. Thus considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents.” 31. In State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [ (1997) 3 SCC 321 ] this Court observed: (SCC p. 322, para 3) “The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e., benefit of withdrawal of resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing misappropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similarly circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? The answer is obviously ‘No’. In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. As stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle him to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a right.” 33. Thus, it is well settled that there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. If a person has an enforceable right, he is required to be treated at par with similarly situated persons, but where no such right is available, he cannot make the said claim. Since in the present case, the petitioners have failed to show any legal right that they should have been served personal notices for documents verification, no relief can be granted to them by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 34. Since in the present case, the petitioners have failed to show any legal right that they should have been served personal notices for documents verification, no relief can be granted to them by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 34. So far as the claim of the writ petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 6112 of 2023 is concerned, if the petitioner was ill at the time of documents verification, he should have represented before the respondent-JSSC at that time itself seeking further time for documents verification, however, he filed the representation as late as on 18.10.2023. On perusal of the chart given in paragraph no. 16 of this judgment, it appears that the said petitioner was given three opportunities for document verification, however, he failed to avail the same. In the case of “Anjana Kumari” (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already rejected the request for granting one more opportunity for documents verification on the ground of illness. 35. Moreover, if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed, the same will cause serious prejudice to several other candidates who have not approached this Court, which will create a separate class amongst the similarly situated persons. Otherwise also, there is every possibility that if any indulgence is granted to the petitioners at this stage, the same will open a pandora box and in such eventuality, the vacancy would never be finally filled up. 36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present batch of writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. 37. I.A. No. 8226 of 2023 in W.P.(S) No. 3436 of 2023 also stands dismissed.