Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ/direction for commanding the respondents to pay salary which is withheld with effect from August, 2018 and suspension allowance from 7.9.2019 along with other consequential benefits including benefits of ACP/Pravaran Vetanman. 3. During pendency of this writ petition, an interlocutory application, bearing I.A. No.1 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner to amend the prayer portion, which was allowed vide order dated 15.07.2024. 4. The brief fact emanates from the case record is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Project Sadholal Shah Arya Girls Inter School, Akbarpur, Nawada (hereinafter referred to as the “School”) on 26.12.1985 vide appointment letter dated 22.12.1985. The petitioner’s school was taken over as a second phase project school. The petitioner was graduate at the time of his initial appointment and, subsequently, he completed his Bachelor of Education (in short, B.Ed.) Training course in session 1988-89 and accordingly, he passed B.Ed. examination in the year 1990 and, on 13.03.1991, the petitioner became a Graduate Trained Teacher. Vide Government Letter No. 142 dated 04.02.1989, a guideline was issued for recognition of service of teaching and non-teaching staff working in the second phase project school. 5. It further appears that in the light of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment dated 03.01.2006, a three men committee was constituted and, upon recommendation of the said committee, the services of the petitioner was recognized with effect from 24.06.2008 and the salary was also paid to him with effect from 01.01.1989. The petitioner was also granted benefits of senior pay scale, after completion of 12 years of his service, with effect from 01.01.2003. Therefore, the petitioner approached before the respondent authorities for payment of salary, which was withheld from August 2018 but, without assigning any reason, surprisingly, vide memo no. 1941 dated 07.09.2019 issued under the signature of respondent no.2, the petitioner was suspended and a department proceeding was initiated against him in which charge-sheet was filed on 07.09.2019. However, the said departmental proceeding is still pending. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner joined on 26.12.1985 in the School and, thereafter, he continued in service till the date of his suspension. However, the said departmental proceeding is still pending. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner joined on 26.12.1985 in the School and, thereafter, he continued in service till the date of his suspension. It is further contended that after completion of 12 years service, he was granted benefits of senior pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2003. 7. It is further contended that while the petitioner was in service, all of a sudden, the payment of salary of the petitioner was stopped from August, 2018, questioning the validity of his B.Ed. Degree but at no point of time, neither any notice was issued and/or served nor any departmental proceeding was initiated against him before withholding the salary. 8. It is further contended that petitioner superannuated on 29.02.2020 and his suspension was revoked with effect from 29.02.2020. 9. It is also contended that similarly situated persons, namely, Bineet Prasad Singh and Surendra Prasad Sinha, whose salaries were also withheld questioning the validity of their B.Ed. Degree had moved before this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 11116 of 2018 and C.W.J.C. No. 864 of 2020, respectively and the learned co-ordinate Benches of this Court have been pleased to dispose of the writ applications with a direction to pay the salary for the period, for which they have not been paid and in compliance of the order of this Court, they have been paid their salary. 10. It is further contended that this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 484 of 2023 vide order dated 20.06.2024 has allowed the writ petition of the petitioner, Vinod Kumar on the ground that the case of Vinod Kumar is squarely covered by the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17970 of 2022. 11. By filing I.A. No. 01 of 2024, the petitioner, in buttress of his submission, has also brought on record several judgments passed by this Court in the case of similarly situated persons viz. judgment dated 06.04.2022 passed in L.P.A. No. 280 of 2021, judgment dated 21.11.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5345 of 2021, judgment dated 09.01.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17970 of 2022. 12. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the approval of the services of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher was given on the basis of production of B.Ed. certificate issued from the Magadh University. 12. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the approval of the services of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher was given on the basis of production of B.Ed. certificate issued from the Magadh University. The petitioner was the student of Sogra College of Education, Biharsharif, Nalanda, which was not recognized by the State Government. It is further contended that the students of Sogra College of Education, were not allowed to get appointment as Niyojit Teacher also. 13. It is further contended that the State Government vide order no.71 dated 25.04.2024 had taken a decision that Sogra College of Education is not a government recognized institution and, accordingly, the certificate and mark-sheet issued for the students of the aforesaid instructions is not acceptable for employment/appointment. Again after the disposal of L.P.A. No.1241 of 2014, vide Department’s letter no.117 dated 23.06.2015, all the District Education Officers and other Officers of the Department were directed that Sogra College of Education, Biharsharif, Nalanda, has been declared unrecognized institution and, accordingly, the teachers appointed/employed on the basis of the B.Ed. Degree of the aforesaid institution shall be terminated from the services immediately. 14. It is further contended that the District Education Officer, Nawada, vide letter no.850 dated 27.08.2019, enclosing the list of the such teachers, who had obtained the degree from Sogra College of Education, Biharsharif, Nalanda, requested for the needful. On receipt of the report of the District Education Officer, Nawada, the services of the petitioner was put under suspension and charge-sheet was served vide Memo No.1942 dated 07.09.2019. The writ petitioner by suppressing the real facts has filed this writ petition for the payment of retiral benefits and arrears of salary. 15. It is lastly contended that the B.Ed. Degree from the Sogra College of Education, Biharsharif, Nalanda is not a valid degree and this issue has also been set at rest by a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.23619 of 2015 vide order dated 15.09.2015 (Md. Bashar Faruque & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). Accordingly, it is contended that this petition lacks merit and fit to be dismissed. 16. It is apposite to note here that a writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No.4560 of 2007 (Md. Adil Rashid & Ors. Bashar Faruque & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). Accordingly, it is contended that this petition lacks merit and fit to be dismissed. 16. It is apposite to note here that a writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No.4560 of 2007 (Md. Adil Rashid & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), was filed before this Court and vide order dated 24.10.2011 a direction was issued to respondents to include Sogra College of Education, Biharsharif, Nalanda in Group-A of Annexure-18 for the session 1985-86 and other sessions for which its students were allowed to appear in the B.Ed. Examination conducted by the University. Against this order, the State of Bihar preferred Intra-Court appeal bearing L.P.A. No.1241 of 2014 and the learned Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 19.05.2015 set aside the order dated 24.10.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4560 of 2007, the relevant portion of the judgment are reproduced herein below: “…..For example, the students were admitted for the Sessions 1985-86, the provisional permission was granted to appear in the examination held in the year 1987-88. The same can be valid, if only the institution is granted affiliation, may be in the year 1990, but with reference to the admission made in the year 1985-86. Such a development has not been taken place in the instant case. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the College itself was closed much before any affiliation was granted. (emphasis supplied) Under these circumstances, we find it difficult to sustain the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is allowed, and the order dated 24.10.2011 passed in CWJC No.4560 of 2007 is set aside….” 17. Aggrieved by the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. L.P.A. No.1241 of 2014, the respondents preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.23619 of 2015 (Md. Bashar Faruque & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2015. Thus, the judgment passed in L.P.A. No.1241 of 2014 has attained finality long back in the year 2015 itself. 18. One similarly situated person, Surendra Prasad Sinha filed C.W.J.C. No.864 of 2020 almost for the same relief as claimed by this petitioner and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.06.2020 disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. The relevant part whereof is reproduced here-under: “….. 18. One similarly situated person, Surendra Prasad Sinha filed C.W.J.C. No.864 of 2020 almost for the same relief as claimed by this petitioner and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.06.2020 disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. The relevant part whereof is reproduced here-under: “….. The nature of grievance advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not call for any adjudication. The Respondent No.4 is under a legal obligation to take a final decision on the petitioner's claims as per law. This Court would direct Respondent No.4 to pay the petitioner the amounts due to him along with a calculation chart and details of the payments made to the petitioner. The retiral dues admissible to the petitioner shall also be sanctioned and processed for payment. The entire exercise must be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 19. Being aggrieved, the State of Bihar preferred an appeal bearing L.P.A. No.280 of 2021 and vide judgment dated 06.04.2022, the same was disposed of with a direction that the pending salaries and the retiral dues along with statutory interest of the writ petitioner-respondent herein shall be calculated and paid within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment, failing which interest upon the same at the rate of six percent per annum shall be payable. This judgment has been annexed has Annexure-P/11 to this writ petition. 20. Thereafter, three to four similarly situated persons also succeeded to get relief from the coordinate Bench of this Court and one writ petition was also allowed by on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner’s is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWJC No.17970 of 2022. It is pertinent to note that on that occasion learned counsel for the State did not oppose the prayer of the petitioner. 21. Thus, it is evidently clear that the order passed in L.P.A. No.1241 of 2014 was not considered by later Division Bench judgment in L.P.A. No.280 of 2021, in spite of the fact that the order of L.P.A. No.1241 of 2014 was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed. 22. 21. Thus, it is evidently clear that the order passed in L.P.A. No.1241 of 2014 was not considered by later Division Bench judgment in L.P.A. No.280 of 2021, in spite of the fact that the order of L.P.A. No.1241 of 2014 was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed. 22. Now, coming to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petitions of several similarly situated persons, who had obtained the degree from Sogra College of Education, Biharsharif, Nalanda was allowed by this Court. 23. In this regard, I may refer to the decision in the case of Basawaraj and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 81 and, more particularly, what has been held in para-8 of the said judgment, which is reproduced herein below: “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.” 24. It is useful to further add that a principle, axiomatic in this country’s constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible.” 24. It is useful to further add that a principle, axiomatic in this country’s constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. Compassion cannot be a ground for issuance of mandamus and/or direction for an unfortunate person, who had obtained B.Ed. degree from an unrecognized institution and more so that issue had already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 25. It is manifest to note that if a decision is taken to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground of compassion that he was suspended in midway of service and, thereafter, superannuated during the suspension period and his suspension was revoked from the date of his superannuation that would be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorized institutions and is tantamount to an unwarranted exercise of the writ jurisdiction by this Court. 26. After giving my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case and the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, I can only say that we are governed by rule of law. It need hardly be emphasized that law has to be both certain and uniform. Certainty of the law, consistency of rulings and decision once rendered must bind later cases. Uniformity and consistency are the core of judicial discipline. 27. It is precedent that when there is conflict between two Division Bench decision and there is no subsequent decision of the Apex Court on that point, the matter has to be referred to Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constitution of larger Bench. Uniformity and consistency are the core of judicial discipline. 27. It is precedent that when there is conflict between two Division Bench decision and there is no subsequent decision of the Apex Court on that point, the matter has to be referred to Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constitution of larger Bench. In this case also I find that there is difference of opinion of two Hon’ble Division Bench, as per the case law relied upon by the parties, hence, taking into account the judicial decorum and propriety as also in the interest of justice, I deem it fit and proper to refer this matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for considering the following questions: I. Whether the degree obtained from the Sogra College of Education, Biharsharif, Nalanda is valid or not, in view of the fact that institution is unrecognized? II. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be given benefit of ACP/Pravaran Vetanman and pensionary benefits as a Graduate trained teacher or untrained teacher. III. Whether the writ petitioner is entitled under law for the arrears of salary claimed as a Graduate trained teacher? 28. Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for getting it heard by a larger Bench. 29. Parties are at liberty to make motion before Hon’ble the Chief Justice.