RAJIV SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was given appointment by the opposite party no. 4 i. e. The Adhyaksh Shiksha Samlti Gram Panchayat, Naurani, Rampur, district Ambedkar nagar vide order dated 4. 8. 1999. In compliance of the order dated 4. 8. 1999, the petitioner had joined at Prathmik Vidyalaya, Fhidai Ganeshpur and started working. Since the petitioner was not paid his salary, he moved an application dated 31. 12. 1999 to the opposite party No. 4. Since the opposite party No. 4 did not take any steps on the aforesaid application, the petitioner moved an application dated 31. 1. 2000 before opposite party No. 1 i. e. District Basic Education Officer. On the aforesaid application, the opposite party No. 1 wrote a letter dated 21. 2. 2000 to the concerned School Head Master, indicating therein that the appointment of the petitioner is irregular. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, which was received by the Head Master on 24. 2. 2000, the opposite party No. 2 passed an order, which appears to be back dated wherein it has been mentioned that since the appointment is irregular and, as such, the petitioner may be restrained from coming to the College. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved against the aforesaid action, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition on the following reliefs : " (a) That a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari may be issued quashing the order dated 19. 8. 1999 contained in Annexure-6 issued by the opposite party No. 2. (b) That a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may be issued commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue in service and to get salary regularly without any effect of the order Annexure-6. (c) That a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may be issued commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner his salary from 4. 8. 1999 till date. (d) That the cost of the writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner. (e) That any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite parties. 8. 1999 till date. (d) That the cost of the writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner. (e) That any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite parties. " ( 4 ) MISS Deep Shiksha, learned Standing Counsel states that the State Government had framed a scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) vide its order dated 26. 5. 1999 for appointment of shiksha Mitra in order to provide education at Primary Level. The procedure for appointment of shiksha Mitra is provided in the aforesaid scheme, which was issued by means of government Order 2604/15-5-99-282/98 dated 26th May, 1999. A perusal of para 1 of the said order, it transpires that the said scheme was initially started for the education session 1999-2000. A perusal of Para 2 of the aforesaid Government Order it transpires that the shiksha Mitra scheme is to be regulated by the District Basic Education Committee and the Shiksha Mitra, who are appointed under the above scheme, are purely on contract basis. A District Level Committee has been constituted at district level with District Magistrate of the concerned district as chairman, District Panchayat Raj Officer being member and District Basic Education Officer being member-cum-secretary. Para 4 of the said order provides that the said committee has been authorised for implementation of the shiksha Mitra scheme in the district. A perusal of Para 3 of the Scheme provides that the Gram Shiksha Samiti shall prepare a list of eligible male and female candidates of the village in which Primary School is situated and in special circumstances when no eligible candidate in the said village is available, then the candidate will be identified in near Nyay Panchayat. According to it, the Gram Shiksha Samiti shall convene a meeting for selection of Shiksha Mitra and shall prepare a list in order of merit of the eligible candidates as per average marks obtained by the candidate in High School and Intermediate Examinations. Proposal for appointment of Shiksha Mitra shall be made thereafter. Para 4 of the said scheme also provides the determination of the vacancy and in para 5, it is provided that the minimum age required for the teachers under the shiksha Mitra scheme is 18 years and maximum of 30 years. Proposal for appointment of Shiksha Mitra shall be made thereafter. Para 4 of the said scheme also provides the determination of the vacancy and in para 5, it is provided that the minimum age required for the teachers under the shiksha Mitra scheme is 18 years and maximum of 30 years. Para 6 provides that Village Education Committee called a meeting in which it is necessary that out of the total members of the said Committee one-third members will be required to present at the time of the selection of shiksha Mitra/mitra, It is also provided in paragraph 6 of the scheme that 50% of the posts shall be reserved for the female candidates. It is also provided in para 6 of the scheme that the ratio of the Shiksha Mitra is 1 : 40. Para 7 deals with the operation of the engagement of the Shiksha Mitra. It is specifically provides that the same will came to on any date of May. Para 8 provides for the honorarium to Rs. 1,405/- to the aforesaid Shiksha mitra. Para 9 empowers the Village Education Committee to disengage the Shiksha Mitra by means of 2/3rd majority in case the work and conduct of the Shiksha Mitra is not satisfactory and he will be entitled only for the honorarium in the month of which he is work. Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 deals with the provisions for arrangement of honorarium. ( 5 ) THE aforesaid Government order was modified by means of Government Order 129 (1)/15-5-2000-282/98 dated 1st July, 2000 and by means of the said Government Order, the honorarium of Shiksha Mitra has been increased from Rs. 1,405/- to Rs. 2,250/- per month and further in para 7, it has been provided that the selected candidate for the post of Shiksha Mitra undergo training for one month and he paid Rs. 400/- during the training period and on successful completion of the training, Shiksha Mitra will be paid Rs. 2,250/-, they will also be entitled for free accommodation and meals. ( 6 ) DURING the course of his argument, learned Standing Counsel has produced the copy of the scheme dated 26. 5. 1999 and the G. O. dated 1. 7. 2000 for perusal of the Court. 2,250/-, they will also be entitled for free accommodation and meals. ( 6 ) DURING the course of his argument, learned Standing Counsel has produced the copy of the scheme dated 26. 5. 1999 and the G. O. dated 1. 7. 2000 for perusal of the Court. She contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as the appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra is contractual as per provisions stated hereinabove. She further submits that Shiksha Mitra is paid honorarium under the contract for service but not salary by the Government because they are not a Government servant and is not amenable to protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of india and as such, the only remedy available to the petitioner is that he filed a suit before the competent Court. ( 7 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel in support of this submission referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Saroj Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 2000 (2) ESC 1263, wherein this honble Court has held that rights of the appellant, if any, flow out of contract and, as such, it is not possible to give any relief in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner who has engaged on contract basis and being paid honorarium for the post of Anganbari Karyakatri not being paid the salary by the Government and as such their services has not been regularised and as such this Honble Court for a direction to regularise the service of the petitioner has held that since they are not a Government servant and they have been engaged on contract basis and as such the regularisation of the services cannot be directed by this Court. This Court has further held that they do not hold the civil post. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Honble Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. ( 8 ) MISS Deepshiksha in support of her arguments, referred the judgment passed by this Court in special Appeal No. 509 of 1997, Smt. Sunaina Singh v. District Magistrate Mau and Ors. , wherein the services of the petitioner has been terminated of contractual appointment of anganbari Workers being paid honorarium at the rate of Rs. ( 8 ) MISS Deepshiksha in support of her arguments, referred the judgment passed by this Court in special Appeal No. 509 of 1997, Smt. Sunaina Singh v. District Magistrate Mau and Ors. , wherein the services of the petitioner has been terminated of contractual appointment of anganbari Workers being paid honorarium at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and also held that since her appointment is contractual and it is open for her to file a suit instead of approaching this Honble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing rival submissions of the parties and going through the record of the case, the moot question which arises for determination is whether this petition is maintainable under article 226 of the Constitution or not ? In this regard, paragraph 6 of the Government Order dated 26. 5. 1999, it has been provided that the petitioner shall be entitled for payment of honorarium of Rs. 400/-for the period of training of one month and after successful completion of the training to Rs. 2,250/ -. Para 10 and 13 of the Scheme provides that Shiksha Mitra will be appointed on contract basis, which will automatically stand expired on next 31st May, on honorarium basis and the fund for honorarium to be paid to Shiksha Mitra will be provided by the State Government, respectively. ( 10 ) IN the very first paragraph of the Government Order dated 1. 7. 2000, it has been clarified by the State Government that shiksha Mitra Programme is not employment Programme meaning thereby that the programme is meant for imparting proper education to the village students and shiksha Mitra cannot treat himself/herself to be a Government Employee. This Government order also specifically provides that Shiksha Mitra will be appointed only on honorarium basis. Moreover, Shiksha Mitra is not holder of a civil post and is not a Government servant but is engaged on contract basis service for a specific period of only one-year, which ends on 31st May next year. ( 11 ) THE facts of the case of Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250 , [1953] 4 SCR 655, are that the petitioner, who had been engaged on the basis of a special contract for a certain term, was, on the expiry of the term, re-appointed by a further contract on a temporary basis. ( 11 ) THE facts of the case of Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250 , [1953] 4 SCR 655, are that the petitioner, who had been engaged on the basis of a special contract for a certain term, was, on the expiry of the term, re-appointed by a further contract on a temporary basis. In accordance with the Government rules, which formed part of the contract he was discharged from service after notice. The petitioner filed a petition under article 32 (1) of the Constitution of India seeking redress for breach of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. It was argued that the rights infringed were those conferred by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Honble the apex Court has held that under Article 311 had no application because there was neither a dismissal nor a removal from service, nor a reduction in rank. As Article 311 had no application, no question of discrimination arose. Article 16 (1) of the Constitution was equally inapplicable. The petitioner had not been denied any opportunity of employment or of appointment. He had been treated just like any other person to whom an offer of temporary employment was made. There can be no grievance against an offer of temporary employment on special terms as opposed to permanent employment. Honble the apex Court further observed that there was no compulsion on the petitioner to enter into the contract he did. Having accepted the offer, he still had open to him all the rights and remedies available to other persons similarly situated to enforce any rights under his contract which had been denied to him assuming there were any, and to pursue in the ordinary Courts of the land such remedies for a breach. The remedy of a writ was, therefore, misconceived. ( 12 ) HONble the apex Court in the case of Kulchhinder Singh and Ors. v. Hardayal Singh Brar and Ors. , AIR 1976 SC 2216 , [1977 (34) FLR 53 ], (1976)II LLJ204 SC , (1976)3 SCC828, [1976 ]3 SCR680, 1976 (8)UJ350 (SC), has held that the remedy of article 226 is unavailable to enforce a contract qua contract. A mere contract agreeing to a quota of promotions cannot be exalted into a service rule or statutory duty. , AIR 1976 SC 2216 , [1977 (34) FLR 53 ], (1976)II LLJ204 SC , (1976)3 SCC828, [1976 ]3 SCR680, 1976 (8)UJ350 (SC), has held that the remedy of article 226 is unavailable to enforce a contract qua contract. A mere contract agreeing to a quota of promotions cannot be exalted into a service rule or statutory duty. Private law may involve a state, a statutory body, or a public body in contractual or tortuous actions. But they cannot be siphoned off into the writ jurisdiction. Although Article 226 is of wide amplitude to correct manifest injustice, but contractual obligations in the ordinary course, without even statutory complexion cannot be enforced by this short, though, wrong cut. Hence, a writ petition merely to enforce an agreement entered into between the employees and the Co-operative Bank about giving certain percentage of promotions to existing employees is not maintainable. ( 13 ) IN the case of Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 266 , (1975) 1 SCC 70 , [1975] 2 SCR 674, 1974 (6) UJ 737 (SC), Honble the apex Court has held that : "under Article 298 of the Constitution the executive powers of the Union and the State shall extend to the carrying on of any trade and to the acquisition, holding and disposal of property and the making of contracts for any purpose. The State can carry on executive function by making a law or without making a law. The exercise of such powers and functions in trade by the state is subject to Part III of the Constitution. Article 14 speaks of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Equality of opportunity should apply to matters of public contracts. The State has the right to trade. The State has there the duty to observe equality. An ordinary individual can choose not to deal with any person. The Government cannot choose to exclude persons by discrimination. The order of black listing has the effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity in the matter of public contract. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of black-listing. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of black-listing. A person who has been dealing with the Government in the matter of sale and purchase of materials has a legitimate interest or expectation. When the State acts to the prejudice of a person it has to be supported by legality. " ( 14 ) IN view of the law laid down by Honble the apex Court, it will be evident that at the time of entry into the field on consideration of persons with whom the Government could contract at all act purely in its executive capacity and is bound by its obligations which dealings of the State with the individual citizens import into every transaction entered into in exercise of its constitutional powers and in such case if there is any violation of constitutional powers and the powers by the authorities of State, the writ petition is maintainable. But after the State or its agents have entered into the field of ordinary contract, the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines rights and obligations of the parties inter se. No question arises of violation of constitutional provision when the State or its agents purporting to act within the field perform any act. In the sphere, they can only claim rights conferred upon them by contract and are bound by the terms of the contract only unless some statute steps in and confers some special statutory power or obligation on the state in the contractual field which is apart from contract. ( 15 ) IN the instant case, as already been stated above, the petitioner was appointed by means of order dated 4. 8. 1999 and in compliance thereof he has joined his duties and worked till 19. 8. 1999 and thereafter he was restrained from performing his duties. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not be restrained or his service could not be terminated without affording any opportunities to the petitioner and the same is the violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. 1999 and thereafter he was restrained from performing his duties. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not be restrained or his service could not be terminated without affording any opportunities to the petitioner and the same is the violation of the principles of natural justice. The appointment of the petitioner is a fixed term which expires as per provisions of the Government Order which came to an end on 31st May every year and he has been paid honorarium for the period he had worked and, as such, in view of the provisions of law laid down by Honble apex Court as well as other cases passed by this Court, the petitioner can only agitate his rights under the contract which had been denied to him and to pursue in the ordinary Courts of the land such remedies for a breach. The remedy of a writ is misconceived. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. . .