JUDGMENT : (Rajesh Shankar, J.) The present writ petition has been filed for holding and declaring the action of the Rajendra Vidyalaya, Sakchi, Jamshedpur (the respondent no.4) as bad in the eyes of law being arbitrary and malafide in transferring/demoting the petitioners from Class-XII to Class-XI as well as for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to allow the petitioners to continue in Class-XII in the respondent no.4 -school and consequently to forthwith register the petitioners with the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination (the respondent no.3) for appearing in ISC-2025 examination. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners passed their Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) Examination of Class-X in the year 2023 and were duly promoted/admitted to Class-XI in the respondent no.4 -school for the Session 2023-24. The petitioner nos.1 to 4 were admitted to the Commerce Branch, whereas the petitioner nos. 5 to 7 were admitted to the Science Branch of the said school. The petitioners duly appeared in the examinations conducted by the school in all the three terms and progress reports of the same were duly issued to them by the respondent no.4. However, since the petitioners were unable to secure the minimum required marks as per the norms laid down by the school, they were detained in Class-XI. 3. It is further submitted that out of 115 students in the Science Branch, 43 students failed and were detained in Class-XI. Similarly, out of 85 students in the Commerce Branch, 31 students failed and were detained in Class-XI. The parents of the said students approached the school authorities requesting to reconsider and re-evaluate the marks obtained by the students. However, the school did not respond. Thereafter, they approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhumgarh (the respondent no.1) who subsequently arranged a meeting between the school authorities and the parents. Moreover, under the guidance of the respondent no.1, a nexus was drawn between the parents and the school authorities for promoting the students from Class-XI to Class-XII, pursuant to which the parents furnished undertakings to the effect that their wards, who were detained in Class-XI, would be promoted provisionally (on trial basis) subject to the condition that they would have to secure good marks in the 1st Terminal Exam of Class-XII to be conducted by the school. The school, in turn, had assured to provide additional improvement classes to help the said students so as to make up the lost classes and further to help them in securing better grades in the upcoming Class-XII examination. In view of the undertakings furnished by the concerned parents, their wards were duly promoted to Class-XII and two separate sections i.e., Class-XII-B for Science students and Class-XII-D for Commerce students were formed. Pursuant to the formation of separate sections, the said students joined Class-XII after paying necessary fees to the school authorities. 4. It is also submitted that the students started attending the classes with the hope of receiving improvement classes for making up the lost time as assured by the school authorities, however no separate or additional class was held for them and the teachers instead pestered them to attend private tuition classes in order to complete and cope up with the lost syllabus. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Term-I examination was conducted for all the Class-XII students including the petitioners pursuant to which, the progress reports of the same were published by the respondent no.4 in which out of total 43 students in Class XII-B, 29 students failed and out of total 31 students of Class XII-D, 26 students failed. Subsequently, progress reports of Class-XII, 1st term exam of Session 2024-25 with respect to the petitioners were issued with comment that as per the agreement between the management, parents and the respondent no. 1, the petitioners did not qualify to continue in their present class and as such they were transferred/demoted to Class XI. 6. It is also submitted that the petitioners even could not join Class-XI pursuant to the publication of the progress report of 1st term examination of Class-XII for the Session 2024-25 and they were forced to sit at home by the said action of the respondent authorities. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the respondent no.4 for their registration with the respondent no.3 for appearing in the ISC examination-2025, but the respondent no.4 categorically denied to register them for the said examination as it was apprehensive of losing its reputation if the petitioners fail in the ISC examination-2025. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioners have duly attended the classes of Class-XII and have also appeared in all the examinations of Term-I of the said class. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioners have duly attended the classes of Class-XII and have also appeared in all the examinations of Term-I of the said class. Thus, keeping in view the said fact, the respondent no.4 is bound to process the candidature of the petitioners. It is also submitted that in comparison to those students who were provisionally promoted from Class-XI to Class-XII, certain other students, who were promoted from Class-XI to Class-XII in usual course, have received much lesser marks in Term-I examination of Class-XII, however they have been permitted to continue in Class-XII. Thus, the actions of the respondent no.4 are not only discriminatory, but also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record. 9. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the respondent no. 4 in demoting them from Class XII to Class XI on two grounds; the first ground is that as per the condition mentioned in the undertakings given by the parents, the respondent no. 4 neither provided any improvement classes to the petitioners nor gave any support to them so as to make-up the lost one-month classes which resulted in their poor result. The second ground is that those students, who were promoted to Class-XII in usual course but had received lesser marks in Term-I examination of Class XII, were permitted to continue in Class-XII and thus, the petitioners are entitled for treatment at par with the said students. 10. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be appropriate to refer Clause B(2) under Chapter II of the Regulations of the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination which reads as under: - "2. It will be the responsibility of the Head of the school to ensure promotion from Class XI to Class XII will be done on the basis of the cumulative achievement level of the student throughout the academic year in the subjects he/she has been registered for. For promotions, a candidate is required to have obtained at least 40% marks in a minimum of four subjects which must include English, on the cumulative average and a minimum attendance of 75% of the working days. No other criteria will be used for promotion form Class XI to Class XII. For promotions, a candidate is required to have obtained at least 40% marks in a minimum of four subjects which must include English, on the cumulative average and a minimum attendance of 75% of the working days. No other criteria will be used for promotion form Class XI to Class XII. Promotions on trial/with re-examination with grace marks should not be granted from Class XI to Class XII. Transfer Certificate should not be issued with 'Promoted to Class XII' if the candidate has not met the required promotion criteria". 11. The aforesaid clause explicitly provides that a candidate shall be given promotion from Class XI to Class XII only when he obtains at least 40% marks in a minimum of four subjects which must include English, on the cumulative average and a minimum attendance of 75% of the working days. No other criteria will be used for promotion from Class XI to Class XII. It has further been provided that promotions on trial/re-examination with grace marks should not be granted from Class XI to Class XII. 12. It is an admitted case of the petitioners that they did not secure minimum qualifying marks in four subjects and thus they were not eligible to be promoted from Class XI to Class XII. However, on the request of the parents of the petitioners, the respondent no. 4 had granted conditional promotion to the petitioners in Class XII with the undertakings given by their parents that if they fail in the first term examination of the promoted class, they would be detained by reverting back to the previous class as per the instructions of the school administration. 13. The promotion of the petitioners from Class XI to Class XII on the basis of the undertakings given by their parents was itself dehors the stipulation made in Clause B(2) of Chapter-II under Regulations of Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, which clearly speaks that the promotion shall not be granted to the candidate who has not secured 40% marks in minimum four subjects which must include English and the said stipulation was required to be mandatorily followed by the respondent no. 4. 14. Otherwise also, the petitioners did not fulfill the condition of undertakings given by their parents as they failed in the first term examination of the promoted class i.e., Class-XII. 4. 14. Otherwise also, the petitioners did not fulfill the condition of undertakings given by their parents as they failed in the first term examination of the promoted class i.e., Class-XII. Now, the petitioners are raising grievance that they have not been provided improvement classes as was agreed by the respondent no. 4 in the said undertakings. I do not find any substance in the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Such type of lame excuses are not acceptable to this Court. 15. So far the other contentions raised by the petitioners are concerned, I am of the view that since Clause B(2) of Chapter-II of the said Regulations explicitly provides that promotion shall not be granted to a candidate from Class XI to Class XII unless he/she fulfills the criteria given under the said clause, if some candidates have been permitted to continue in Class-XII, the same does not give any right to the petitioners to claim similar treatment. It is a well settled principle of law that illegality cannot be allowed to perpetuate. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim negative equality. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fuljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab reported in (2010) 11 SCC 455 , has held as under:- “11 [Ed. : Para 11 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./67/2010 dated 9-7-2010.] . The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia[ AIR 1993 P&H 54 ] in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. 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 wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible. (Vide Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. v. Union of India [1984 Supp SCC 457], Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan [ (2009) 2 SCC 589 ] and Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India [ (2009) 15 SCC 705 ].) 12. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [ (1995) 1 SCC 745 ], Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [ (1996) 7 SCC 426 ], Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh [ (1999) 3 SCC 494 ] , State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh [ (2000) 9 SCC 94 ], Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar [ (2001) 4 SCC 309 ], Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi [ (2003) 3 SCC 548 ], Union of India v. International Trading Co. [ (2003) 5 SCC 437 ], Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana [ (2005) 9 SCC 164 ], K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. [ (2006) 3 SCC 581 ] and Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K [ (2008) 9 SCC 24 ] .)” 17. There is no concept of negative equality envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India but has only a positive facet. In case a person has a right, he has to be treated equally, but where right is not available, a person cannot claim to be treated equally. Even if few similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief. If a wrong has been committed by the authority, the same cannot be allowed to perpetuate. 18. Once the petitioners had taken admission in Class XI, they were bound to abide by the conditions of promotion from Class XI to Class XII and were required to focus on their studies. Had the petitioners studied sincerely, they would not have faced the present situation. 18. Once the petitioners had taken admission in Class XI, they were bound to abide by the conditions of promotion from Class XI to Class XII and were required to focus on their studies. Had the petitioners studied sincerely, they would not have faced the present situation. Considering the petitioners’ prayer leniently will open flood gate for other unsuccessful candidates claiming similar treatment and under such situation, the provision prescribed in the Regulations of the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination will become redundant. Thus, the petitioners are advised to focus on their studies rather than rushing to the court seeking deviation from the provision made in the Regulations framed by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination. 19. Before parting with the case, I would also like to comment on the action of the respondent no.4 whereby the petitioners and other unsuccessful candidates were promoted from Class XI to Class XII on the basis of the undertakings given by their parents which was certainly dehors the Regulations framed by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination. The respondent no. 4 is duty bound to strictly follow the Regulations of the said Council so as to maintain the standard of education. Such practice is bound to be deprecated. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.