Honble PARIHAR, J.–Since on similar set of facts almost same relief has been claimed by all the petitioners, on joint request of the parties, the above writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order. (2). Government of India introduced a scheme in the year 1974-75 for imparting nonformal education to the children in the age group of 9/11 years who were either school drop-out or did not go to school. The scheme provided for the opening of Nonformal Education Centres (Part-time) by the State Government with the help of Central Government grant. Under the same scheme, the State Government also started a project under the Directorate of Literacy Nonformal Education Department and established Nonformal Education Centres in different districts. (3). Petitioners, in the above writ petitions, also came to be appointed as Instructors/ Supervisors on honorarium basis under the above nonformal Education Centres during the period from 1985 till 1991. (4). Subsequently, in February, 1998, after reconsideration of the whole nonformal education programme, the State Government thought it proper to make certain changes in the existing scheme to make it more viable with the active cooperation of the society and the local people. The element of accountability was also introduced in the changed scheme. Certain new guidelines were fixed and existing system of Supervisors was to be scrapped. The order dated 30.4.1998 was also issued by the Director, Literacy & Nonformal Education. (5). In view of abolition of the existing system, services of the petitioners were sought to be terminated and, in some cases, orders were also issued in this regard. Challenging the order dated 30.4.1998 and also the termination sought to be make in pursuance to above order in the present writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed not only for their reinstatement but also regularisation and regular pay scale of the post of Supervisor/Instructor. Petitioners have also prayed that respondents be directed to continue the existing system of Supervisor/Instructor in the nonformal education programme. (6). Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, while heavily relying on the judgment of this court in case of Hand-pump Mistries Radhe Shyam Dhobi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Petitioners have also prayed that respondents be directed to continue the existing system of Supervisor/Instructor in the nonformal education programme. (6). Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, while heavily relying on the judgment of this court in case of Hand-pump Mistries Radhe Shyam Dhobi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and another (1) and another connected writ petitions, decided on 26.8.1991, which had further been approved upto to the Apex Court) has submitted that in view of fundamental right of education and employment as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and a further duty been cast on the State to impart free education under Article 45 of the Constitution, the scheme of nonformal education was floated keeping in view the mandate of the Constitution. The contention of Mr. Sharma is that the scheme is continuing for last so many years with continuous increase in proportion from time to time, the State Government cannot change or scrap the existing system at its own whims in an arbitrary manner. (7). Mr. K.K. Sharma has further submitted that in the present case, there is definitely a relationship of master and servant and right of employment cannot be curtailed by the State Government in such an arbitrary manner without any basis or reasonable grounds. Mr. K.K. Sharma though very fairly conceded that no orders for regularisation of services of the petitioners can be made by this court, however, the court can always direct the respondent State to frame a proper scheme to adjust all the existing Instructors/Supervisors working in the nonformal education programme by framing proper rules for them providing also a pay scale or even minimum pay looking to their work and duties. (8). Mr. M.B. Sharma, learned counsel for some of the petitioners, has submitted that it is the question of life and bread of the petitioners which cannot be taken away in such an arbitrary manner and the court must come to the rescue of the petitioners in the present matter. (9). He has also submitted that discontinuation of the existing system has already been put in abeyance by the State Government, as such, direction be issued to them for continuing the services of the petitioners till existing system is continued. (10). Mr. (9). He has also submitted that discontinuation of the existing system has already been put in abeyance by the State Government, as such, direction be issued to them for continuing the services of the petitioners till existing system is continued. (10). Mr. J.M. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while giving reasons for discontinuing the existing system as mentioned, in detail, in the impugned order dated 30.4.1998 itself, has submitted that because of the failure of the existing system, a new system has been introduced in the interest of the public at large and no arbitrariness can be found in the same. Mr. Saxena has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of ``Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi & others (2) and ``State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Monirujaman Mullick & others (3). (11). After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record as also the judgments cited at the Bar. (12). Admittedly, there are no rules in regards to appointment of Instructor/Supervisors in the Nonformal Education Scheme as initiated by the Central Government and executed by the State Government. Petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis as Instructors/Supervisors on fixed honorarium. From the object and working of the scheme it can well be visualised as a job of voluntary in nature, where a Supervisor is required to cover a distance of about 50 kms in a week to supervise 10 to 15 nonformal education centres in a week for which some payment is made on honorarium basis. (13). The system continued for more than 10 years, however, the State Government, after re-assessing the whole situation, thought it proper to make certain changes in the existing system to make it more practical and social oriented with the active cooperation of the local people. After having carefully gone through the order dated 30.4.1998, I find no arbitrariness of any kind in the new guidelines set out by the State Government replacing the existing system. More emphasis is laid down on local requirement, cooperation and accountability of the local people including Panchas and Sarpanch of the area. It is more in conformity with the mandate of the Constitution of India, in a way, in decentralisation of powers to be given to the Gram Panchayats. (14). More emphasis is laid down on local requirement, cooperation and accountability of the local people including Panchas and Sarpanch of the area. It is more in conformity with the mandate of the Constitution of India, in a way, in decentralisation of powers to be given to the Gram Panchayats. (14). Recently, the Apex Court in case of ``State of Punjab & Ors vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga & Ors. (4), has clearly observed as under: ``The right of the State to change its policy from time to time under the changing circumstances, is neither challenged nor could it be. It is not normally within the domain of any court to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinise it and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of varying, modifying or annulling it, based on howsoever sound and good reasoning, except where it is arbitrary or violative of any constitutional, statutory or any other provision of law. When Government forms its policy, it is based on a number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm which belong to the executive. (15). The Apex Court, in case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union (supra) has also clearly observed as under: Those employed under the scheme, therefore, could not ask for more than what the scheme intended to give them. To get an employment under such scheme and to claim on the basis of the said employment a right to regularisation, is to frustrate the scheme itself. No court can be a party to such exercise. It is wrong to approach the problems of those employed under such scheme with a view to providing them with full employment and guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. These concepts in the context of such scheme are both unwarranted and misplaced. They will do more harm than good by depriving the many of the little income that they may get to keep them from starvation. They would benefit a few at the cost of the many starving poor for whom the scheme are meant. These concepts in the context of such scheme are both unwarranted and misplaced. They will do more harm than good by depriving the many of the little income that they may get to keep them from starvation. They would benefit a few at the cost of the many starving poor for whom the scheme are meant. That would also force the State to wind up the existing schemes and forbit them from introducing the new ones, for want of resources. (16). In the same set of facts as in the present writ petitions, this court, in case of ``Jalal Khan & anr vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (5) and other, connected writ petitions filed by the Supervisors of nonformal education centres, with the same prayer made as in the present writ petitions, dismissed the writ petitions vide order dated 17.9.1998. This court, while relying on various judgments of Apex court has held that the services of the petitioners cannot be any stretch be said to fall within the definition of `civil servant, as such, the petitioners cannot take shelter of law applicable to the civil servants. (17). The judgment of learned Single Judge was further confirmed by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 982/1998, decided on 26.10.1998. (18). Since the above judgments were passed exactly under the same set of facts, after having gone through the judgments as referred to above, I find no ground for taking any contrary view so as to refer the matter to the Larger Bench, moreso, when even the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Monirujaman Mullick & Ors. (supra) has held that the nonformal educational centres cannot be equated with the primary schools which are regularly run by the Education Department of the State Government. Apart from the basic qualitative differences between the two institutions, even the nature of work of the nonformal education instructors and the primary school teachers is not identical. The method of appointment, the source of recruitment, the method of teaching and the mode of payment are entirely different. (19). In view of the judgments referred to above, neither any case of regularisation is made out nor the petitioners are entitled for regular salary for the post of Instructors/Supervisors under the nonformal education scheme. (20). The method of appointment, the source of recruitment, the method of teaching and the mode of payment are entirely different. (19). In view of the judgments referred to above, neither any case of regularisation is made out nor the petitioners are entitled for regular salary for the post of Instructors/Supervisors under the nonformal education scheme. (20). Since the respondents have decided to change the norms of the existing scheme, the petitioners have no right to continue in service. They can only be continued in the job if they fulfil the conditions mentioned in the new guidelines and are selected by the committee appointed for the same under the new system. (21). So far as cases of Hand-pump Mistries, which have heavily been relied on by counsel for the petitioners, is concerned, the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the petitioners were claiming protection of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 mainly on the ground that even temporary/casual employees are ``workmen as defined under section 2(s) of the Act of 1947. The whole exercise was made upto to the Apex Court in that context only. (22). The prayer in regard to directions to the State Government for formulating a new scheme for absorbing or adjusting the existing Instructors/Supervisors also does not require further consideration, because it is the sole discretion of the State Government to implement a particular scheme in a manner more suitable and practical in the interest of public at large. There may be various circumstances before the State Government in implementing such schemes and neither any interference is called for by this court under its writ jurisdiction nor any directions are required to be made in this regard. (23). Taking into over all consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the present case and the judgments of the Division Bench and Apex Court on the same facts, I find no ground for any interference of this court under its writ jurisdiction in the present writ petitions. (24). Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs.