Mandatory school-upgradation procedure controls relief; Article 14 cannot be used to repeat an illegal benefit.

A statutory procedure governing opening or upgrading aided schools must be followed strictly, including publication of the final list and a Gazette notification inviting applications under Rule 2A. Applications made outside that procedure are not entitled to consideration. A plea of discrimination does not justify judicially compelled parity where the earlier upgrades themselves were granted in disregard of the rules, because Article 14 does not require repetition of an illegality. A writ court cannot direct the State to perpetuate an unlawful or irregular benefit, and the absence of compliance with the mandatory process defeats the claim for upgradation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to judicially compelled upgradation of their aided schools on a plea of discrimination, despite the statutory procedure in the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 and the absence of a notification calling for applications.

Analysis: The governing rules laid down a complete procedure for opening or upgrading schools. Applications for upgradation could be considered only after publication of the final list and a Gazette notification inviting applications under Rule 2A. Applications made otherwise were barred from consideration. The respondents' claim of discrimination rested on the fact that two other schools had earlier been upgraded, but those instances were found to have been made in disregard of the prescribed rules. Equality under Article 14 does not require repetition of an illegality, and a writ court cannot direct the State to perpetuate an unlawful or irregular benefit granted to others. The financial burden on the State and the absence of compliance with the statutory procedure also supported rejection of the claim.

Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to a direction for upgradation on the basis of discrimination, and the challenge to the State's refusal could not succeed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory procedure for school upgradation had to be followed strictly, and parity could not be claimed with earlier irregular upgrades; the High Court's contrary direction was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Equality cannot be invoked to compel the State or a court to repeat an illegality, and where a statute prescribes a mandatory procedure for conferring a benefit, that procedure must be strictly followed before any relief can be granted.

---