Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim parity in illegality or perpetuate administrative errors.

The Petitioners, sportspersons who participated in various junior-level National and State Championships, applied for the post of Constable (General Duty) under the sports quota in the BSF pursuant to advertisements dated 10.10.2025 and 19.12.2025

The Respondent (BSF) refused to issue admit cards to the Petitioners on the grounds that their sports certificates were issued by federations—specifically 'Fit India Youth Games Development Federation' and 'National Sports Federation of India'—which are not recognized by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports or the Indian Olympic Association

The Petitioners challenged this rejection, asserting that similarly situated candidates with identical certificates were appointed in previous recruitment cycles and that the rejection was discriminatory

1. Whether the rejection of the Petitioners' candidature due to non-recognition of their sports federations was valid under the terms of the recruitment advertisement

2. Whether the Petitioners can claim appointment based on the principle of parity under Article 14 if ineligibility is established but other similarly situated persons were allegedly appointed in the past

The court primarily applied the recruitment criteria stipulated in Clause 4 and 4b(iii) of the BSF Advertisements, which mandate that sports certificates must be issued by associations affiliated with or recognized by the Indian Olympic Association or the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports

It further relied on the constitutional principle under Article 14 that equality cannot be claimed to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity; the doctrine of "negative equality" establishes that if a benefit was erroneously conferred on one person, others cannot claim it as a matter of right

The Court found that the Petitioners’ federations explicitly admitted in correspondence that they were not recognized by the relevant national sports authorities

Consequently, the Petitioners failed to meet the mandatory eligibility criteria set forth in the advertisements

Regarding the Petitioners' argument of parity, the court reasoned that Article 14 does not provide for the "multiplication of errors"

Even if the BSF had inadvertently appointed ineligible candidates in the past, such mistakes do not create a vested right for the Petitioners to be appointed in violation of the prescribed rules

The court noted the Respondents’ assurance that they are verifying past recruitments and will take corrective action against any irregular appointments

It held that a claim for parity cannot be sustained to seek an irregular benefit

Both writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim relief permitting some petitioners to participate was effectively vacated