JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the reasoned order dated 24.11.2020, passed by 2 nd respondent wherein claim of the petitioner for regularization in Clerical Cadre has been rejected and also for issuance of appropriate order for regularization of service in Clerical Grade-III with all consequential benefits. 2. This case has chequered history. Way back in the year 2010, the petitioner filed an application before this Court being W.P.(S). No. 5711 of 2010, whereby he has prayed for direction upon the respondents to regularize the petitioner in Clerical Grade-III. The said writ application was disposed of on 16.05.2011 by giving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation and the respondents were directed to pass a reasoned order upon such representation. Subsequently, pursuant to the aforesaid order passed in W.P.(S). No. 5711 of 2010, a reasoned order dated 29/31.08.2011 was passed, wherein the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rejected. 3. The petitioner again challenged the said reasoned order in W.P.(S). No. 5669 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 16.10.2020, whereby the impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted to the 2 nd respondents for passing a fresh reasoned order. Subsequent thereto, the impugned order dated 24.11.2020 was passed which is assailed in the present writ application. 4. From record it appears that the petitioner has prayed for quashing the reasoned order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 (General Manager, Block II Area), and for issuance of appropriate order for regularization a Clerical Grade -III with all consequential benefits w.e.f. the date similarly situated employees were regularized vide order dated 16.07.2009. It further reveals from the records that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 5711/2010 and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In compliance of the directions passed by this Court, a Reasoned Order dated 29/31.08.2011 was passed by the General Manager, Block II Area and communicated to the petitioner. 5. However, the petitioner being not satisfied with Reasoned Order dated 29/31.08.2011, had again challenged the same in W.P. (S) No. 5669/2011 before this Court. In compliance of the directions passed by this Court, a Reasoned Order dated 29/31.08.2011 was passed by the General Manager, Block II Area and communicated to the petitioner. 5. However, the petitioner being not satisfied with Reasoned Order dated 29/31.08.2011, had again challenged the same in W.P. (S) No. 5669/2011 before this Court. This Court by an order dated 16.10.2020 was pleased to quash the Reasoned Order dated 29/31.08.2011 and remitted the matter to the General Manager to pass a fresh and speaking order in the light of the fact that other similarly situated persons have received the benefit of promotion, as claimed by the petitioner. 6. As per the service records of the petitioner, it appears that he was appointed as Cat-I Mazdoor on 23.03.1996. He was promoted as Operator Helper on 23.10.2001. Thereafter, he was granted higher scale under SLP w.e.f. 01.01.2010 and was again upgraded in higher scale under SLP w.e.f. 01.01.2018. At present his basic pay is Rs. 1991.31 per day. 7. It further transpires that there is no provision either in the Certified Standing Order or the National Coal Wage Agreement to regularize anyone in a cadre post without following the procedure laid down for selection according to the cadre scheme. The petitioner does not have a legal right for regularization as Clerk merely because someone has been regularized irregularly. The petitioner cannot claim the same benefit. 8. It is well settled law that enforcing a negative equality is impermissible in law. 9. As a matter of fact, which is evident from Cadre Scheme that the minimum qualification for selection in Clerical Grade III according to the Cadre Scheme is matriculation or equivalent examination from any recognized Board of Examination. The petitioner claimed that he passed Praveshika Certificate of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar. Praveshika Certificate from Hindi Vidyapith cannot be recognized in equivalence of matriculation. 10. Thus, it is eident that the petitioner is also not having minimum qualification as required for selection in Clerical Gr. III as per Cadre Scheme. 11. The petitioner claimed that he passed Praveshika Certificate of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar. Praveshika Certificate from Hindi Vidyapith cannot be recognized in equivalence of matriculation. 10. Thus, it is eident that the petitioner is also not having minimum qualification as required for selection in Clerical Gr. III as per Cadre Scheme. 11. As stated hereinabove and also observed in the impugned order that the post of Clerk Grade-III is a selection post and whenever any vacancy arises in Clerical Grade-III, according to the manpower budget, the respondent-Company invites applications from the eligible candidates and as a matter of fact, the Management indeed invited application in the year 2019 vide Departmental Circular dated 21.02.2019 and 18.03.2020 but the petitioner did not apply and has not availed the opportunity for selection as Clerk. Thus, the petitioner instead of availing the regular procedure, has totally depended himself upon the fate of this writ application. 12. At the cost of repetition, there is no provision in NCWA to regularize anyone in a cadre post without following the procedure laid down for selection according to the cadre scheme. 13. As such, no interference is required with the impugned order and accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 14. As a result, the instant writ application stands dismissed.