JUDGMENT 1. - Bunch of the writ petitions was disposed of by a common order dated 8th of May, 2009 wherein following directions have been given:- "I. During continuation of the work, as detailed out hereinabove, the invocation of the last extension is arbitrary and illegal; and the consequential automatic termination orders of the petitioners are set aside. II. The RPSC/DPC selected candidates/employees are still not available and next academic session is about to start; even urgent temporary appointments under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1971 are not possible due to short span of one month and a half left to start with the process of admission and academic session, therefore, as per the aims and objects of the Scheme, respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available in the light of the above observations; III. Even in the case of appropriate order of continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/DPC selected persons are available, the petitioners are not entitled for wages of the vacations, in other words when the schools are closed. IV. In case the regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by the DPC for promotion are made available, then the respondents can terminate services of the petitioners after preparation of the seniority list on the State level as per their date of appointment and merit assigned to them, by following the principle of "last come first go" to the extent of availability of the selected candidates and while doing so, the respondents will keep the interest of the present students and prospective students in view." 2. The appeals have been preferred by the petitioners as well as by the State Government. 3. We have issued the notices on the appeals preferred by the State Government, however, the grievances and issues set out by the petitioners-appellants (for short "the appellants") are different, thus bunch of the appeals preferred by the appellants were heard separately. 4. The State of Rajasthan framed a Scheme to engage "Vidhyarthi Mitra" to undertake teaching work in the schools. As per the Scheme, a person residing in the area is to be engaged for teaching work. 4. The State of Rajasthan framed a Scheme to engage "Vidhyarthi Mitra" to undertake teaching work in the schools. As per the Scheme, a person residing in the area is to be engaged for teaching work. The said Scheme was approved by the Finance Department vide its circular dated 9.1.2007 and thereby "Vidharthi Mitra" was to be engaged on fixed remuneration of Rs. 4,000/- per month for Lecturer, Rs. 3,000/- for Senior Teacher and Rs. 2,750/- for Teacher Grade-Ill. Pursuant to the circular, the appellants were engaged for a fixed term with a stipulation that they can be continued till the candidates regularly selected or promoted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "the RPSC") or Departmental Promotion Committee (for short "the DPC) respectively, are made available or till 29.2.2009, whichever is earlier. Fixed term appointment of "Vidyarthi Mitra" was made pursuant to the circulars dated 9.1.2007 and 2.6.2008. The term of the engagement was extended from 1.3.2009 to 15.4.2009 vide circular dated 4.12.2008. All the appellants approached the High Court at the stage when their term was to come to an end and in few cases, the writ petitions were filed even at a later stage. The writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common order with certain directions already quoted above. 5. Learned counsel for appellants have challenged the impugned judgment mainly to claim following reliefs:- (i) Denial of benefit of regularisation on the post the appellants were engaged; (ii) Alternatively denial of the benefit of minimum of the pay scale of the post in view of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" and (iii) Denial of the wages of summer vacations. 6. It is submitted by learned counsels that appellants are discharging the same duties as otherwise discharged by the regularly selected candidates as Lecturer, Senior Teacher or Teacher Grade-Ill and having worked for nearly one year, they have acquired right to seek regularisation on the post on which they were appointed. An alternative prayer has been made for grant of minimum of the pay scale of the post concerned based on doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". An alternative prayer has been made for grant of minimum of the pay scale of the post concerned based on doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". It is submitted that when the petitioners are discharging the same duties as are discharged by the regularly selected candidates, then in view of the provisions of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India and theory of "equal pay for equal work", the appellants are entitled for grant of minimum of the pay scale, however, the same has been denied not only by the respondents but in the impugned judgment also. Reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 618 has been made. It is stated that therein also adhoc/part-time appointments were made till regularly incumbents joined the post. The Hon'ble Supreme Court though refused to grant benefit of regularization, but directions were issued to continue adhoc/part-time employees till the regularly candidates are made available. The benefit of minimum of the pay scale was also awarded. In view of the aforesaid judgment, prayer of the appellants is to grant similar benefit by accepting the second prayer set out in the appeal. It is also urged by learned counsel for appellants that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rattanlal & Ors. v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1987 SCC 478 , the appellants are entitled for the wages of summer vacation, which otherwise has been denied by the learned Single Judge while disposing the writ petitions with certain directions. Other than three issues referred to above, no other issue was urged before us. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 8. So far as first prayer made by the appellants is concerned, it is for seeking regularisation on the post for which they were engaged. Perusal of the record shows that the appellants were engaged on contract basis pursuant to the scheme formulated by the State Government. It is not a case where the appellants have been appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (in short "the Rules of 1971") or Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 (in short "the Rules of 1970"). It is not a case where the appellants have been appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (in short "the Rules of 1971") or Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 (in short "the Rules of 1970"). Their appointments are purely on contractual basis, thus were not made as per the procedure laid down in the Rules referred to above. The appointments have been made pursuant to the circulars dated 9.1.2007 as well as 2.6.2008. Perusal of the circulars shows that it is virtually an arrangement made to engage a person of the area concerned to undertake teaching work in the schools. The engagement of the appellants on contractual basis was made not by the procedures prescribed or even by the authority, who is competent to issue appointment orders. In view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 where the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey reported in (2007) 11 SCC 92 was directed to read as obiter and not to be treated binding on the High Courts, it was held that the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has to be followed being binding precedent as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The issue of regularisation and even absorption of the employees appointed on temporary, contractual, casual, daily wages or adhoc basis has been elaborately discussed in the aforesaid judgment. In Paras 66, 68, 69, 70 and 72, the claim of regularisation has been criticized for the reasons mentioned therein. In view of the aforesaid recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein all earlier judgments have been discussed elaborately, the claim of the appellants to seek regularisation despite of their contractual appointment and having accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment cannot be accepted. Even if, we look into the judgment relied by the appellants themselves in the case of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), claim of the regularisation therein was also not accepted. Even if, we look into the judgment relied by the appellants themselves in the case of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), claim of the regularisation therein was also not accepted. In view of the above, the claim of the appellants to seek regularisation on the post they were engaged only on contractual basis cannot be accepted. Such appointments are not in consonance with the rules rather it is by an arrangement made as per the Scheme dated 9.1.2007 i.e. by engaging the person of the area concerned, thus the first issue raised by the appellants is decided against them. 9. Coming to the second issue whereby the appellants have sought direction for grant of minimum pay scale of the post on which they are working. Much reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the benefit of minimum pay scale and continuity while denying the benefit of regularization. The aforesaid judgment runs in three paras, hence, the same is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- "1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants in these cases were employed on ad hoc basis in several colleges in the State of Punjab. There being a threat of termination of their services, they filed writ petitions before the High Court seeking for the relief of regularization, minimum pay scale and to continue in their present posts until regular appointments are made. All the reliefs were rejected by the High Court and so far as the relief relating to continue them in their present posts until regular incumbents are appointed, the High Court stated that the Government will have to follow its policy decision dated 23.7.2001. 3. We have carefully looked into the judgment of the High Court and other pleadings that have been put forth before this Court. It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. The course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these persons who have gained experience which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular incumbents are appointed. We direct that they shall be continued in service till regular appointments are made on minimum of the pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly." 10. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that it was a case where High Court allowed arrangement of ad hoc appointment to be replaced by another ad hoc appointment, thus the Hon'ble Apex Court held it to be illegal as the persons gained experience can be more beneficial, thereby continuity till regular appointments are made and benefits of minimum pay scale were awarded. The aforesaid judgment is dated November 7, 2003, but reported in the year 2008. Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment, Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court decided the matter in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) followed by yet another judgment in the case of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (supra). In paras 93, 95 and 100 of Official Liquidator case, apart from other paras, issue has been dealt with. Paras 93, 95 and 100 are quoted hereunder for ready reference:- "93. The respondents" claim for fixation of pay in the regular scale and grant of other monetary benefits on a par with those appointed against the sanctioned posts has been accepted by the High Courts on the premise that their duties and functions are similar to those performed by regular employees. The respondents" claim for fixation of pay in the regular scale and grant of other monetary benefits on a par with those appointed against the sanctioned posts has been accepted by the High Courts on the premise that their duties and functions are similar to those performed by regular employees. In the opinion of the High Courts, similarity in the nature of work of the company-paid staff on the one hand and regular employees on the other hand, is by itself sufficient for invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work. In our view, the approach adopted by the High Courts is clearly erroneous and directions given for bringing about parity between the company-paid staff and regular employees in the matter of pay, allowances etc. are liable to be upset. 95. The ratio of Randhir Singh v. Union of India was reiterated and applied in several cases - Dhirendera Chamoli v. State of U.P. , Surinder Singh v. CPWD , Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India , Dhanwad Distt. PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka and Jaipal v. State of Haryana and it was held that even a daily-wage employee who is performing duties similar to regular employees is entitled to the same pay. However, in Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India , Mewa Ram Kanojia v. AIIMS , V. Markendya v. State of A.P. , Harbans Lal v. State of H.P. , State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia , Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers" Union v. Union of India , GDA v. Vikram Chaudhary , State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh , State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar , Union of India v. K.V. Baby , State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu , Utkal University v. Jyotirmayee Nayak , State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj , Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das , Apangshu Mohan Lodha v. State of Tripura , State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh , Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh , Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. L. V. Subramanyeswara and Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v. Metallurgical & Engg. Consultations (India) Ltd. , the Court consciously and repeatedly deviated from the ruling of Randhir Singh v. Union of India and held that similarity in the designation or quantum of work are not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales and that before entertaining and accepting the claim based on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the Court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value judgment, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. 100. As mentioned earlier, the respondents were employee/engaged by the Official Liquidators pursuant to the sanction accorded by the Court under Rule 308 of the 1959 Rules and they are paid salaries and allowances from the company fund. They were neither appointed against sanctioned posts nor were they paid out from the Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore, the mere fact that they were doing work similar to the regular employees of the Offices of the Official Liquidators cannot be treated as sufficient for applying the principle of equal pay for equal work. Any such direction will compel the Government to sanction additional posts in the Offices of the Official Liquidators so as to facilitate payment of salaries and allowances to the company-paid staff in the regular pay scale from the Consolidated Fund of India and in view of our finding that the policy decision taken by the Government of India to reduce the number of posts meant for direct recruitment does not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity, it is not possible to entertain the plea of the respondents for payment of salaries and allowances in the regular pay scales and other monetary benefits on a par with regular employees by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work." 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court had even considered the issue to legitimate expectation in reference to the claim under which certain appointments were made and while dealing with the aforesaid issue from Para 101 onwards, the plea raised by the petitioners therein was not accepted contrary to the Scheme and acceptance of appointment by the petitioners as a consequence thereof. In view of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Official liquidator (supra), the claim made by the appellants cannot be accepted as they have not been appointed as per the rules either of 1970 or 1971. In view of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Official liquidator (supra), the claim made by the appellants cannot be accepted as they have not been appointed as per the rules either of 1970 or 1971. This is apart from the fact that even the engagement of the appellants have been made as a local arrangement i.e. by engaging the person of the area concerned and thereby order of engagement has not been issued by the competent authority. These facts are quite relevant because equity can be claimed when two set of persons are similarly placed and not otherwise. It is a well settled law that unequal cannot be made equal so as to violate the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, since the engagement of the appellants were made pursuant to the circular dated 9.1.2007 by engaging the person of the area concerned, merit as otherwise to be considered at the state level is being scarified because engagement of the post of Teacher Grade III onwards is made by selection to be conducted by the RPSC or pursuant to the promotion recommended by the DPC and therein merit of all the candidates is considered at the state level. These are the relevant considerations while adjudicating the issue pertaining to the benefit of equal pay for equal work because an employee who was not engaged as per the recruitment rules, cannot claim parity. It seems to be a case where State has come with the policy for a particular period to address the situation existing then, thus engagement of the appellants on certain terms and conditions, having been accepted, they cannot claim benefit of equal pay for equal work for the reasons already assigned above. The circular dated 2.6.2008 further shows that even non-B.Ed. candidates were also allowed to be engaged, if the eligible candidates are not available. The aforesaid circular dated 2.6.2008 has otherwise been quoted at page 44 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. That being the situation, it cannot be accepted that the appellants are yet entitled for the benefit of equal pay for equal work, may it be that they are having the qualification of the post. 12. The issue of "equal pay for equal work" was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Utkal University & Anr. v. Jyotirmayee Nayak & Ors. 12. The issue of "equal pay for equal work" was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Utkal University & Anr. v. Jyotirmayee Nayak & Ors. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 706. In the aforesaid case, scheme of "equal pay for equal work" was not accepted in the absence of any appointment orders appointing them in regular pay scale. The claim of the regularisation was also denied by the Hon'ble Apex Court therein. The same view was taken in the case of State of Haryana & Anr. v. Tilak Raj & Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 123 , it was a case of daily-wage. It was held that daily-wager holds no post and thereby benefit of "equal pay for equal work" was denied. The claim of parity with regular employees was denied holding that it is not possible to hold that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is an abstract one. In the case of State of Orissa & Ors. v. Dipti Paul reported in (2000) 10 SCC 413 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the benefit of parity in employment so as to award equal pay for equal work and regularisation cannot be accepted. Therein the trained matriculates were engaged as "Sikhyakarmis" on fixed remuneration. The work assigned to them was to assist the teacher but a provision was made for grant of priority for appointment on the post of primary school teacher. The claim of regularisation and regular pay scale was not accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of the aforesaid judgments also, the claim of the appellants for grant of benefit of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be accepted. 13. Now, remains the third and last issue regarding grant of wages for the summer vacation, when the schools remain closed. In this regard, the appellants have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rattanlal & Ors. v. State of Haryana (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court issued direction to allow salary of summer vacation and according to the appellants, their case is also similar to that of the case of Rattanlal. The last issue is thus in reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rattanlal (supra). v. State of Haryana (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court issued direction to allow salary of summer vacation and according to the appellants, their case is also similar to that of the case of Rattanlal. The last issue is thus in reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rattanlal (supra). In the case of Rattanlal (supra), the Government appointed teachers on adhoc basis with the commencement of academic year and terminating their services before commencement of next summer vacation or even earlier with an arrangement to appoint them again on adhoc basis at the commencement of the next academic year with the same arrangement of termination before succeeding summer vacation or earlier to it. Since such practice remained for some years as vacancies remained unfilled for 3 to 4 years, the policy of the Government was not held to be proper. The petitioners therein were allowed salary of the summer vacation with further directions. It was taken to be a case of artificial break in service. If we look into the facts of this case, admittedly the appellants were appointed in the year 2008 without any stipulation that they would again be engaged with the commencement of the new academic year of 2009, thus the facts of the case in hand are not similar to that of the case of Rattanlal (supra). In fact, the appellants are now ordered to be engaged pursuant to the decision impugned herein and not as per the policy of the Government as was otherwise existing in the case of Rattanlal (supra). Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge while denying the benefit of salary of the summer vacation. 14. Before us, circulars of State of Rajasthan dated 26.11.2008 has been placed on record to show that salary of summer vacation has been permitted therein. We have looked into that circular also, however, the aforesaid circular has to be read along with the circulars dated 9.1.2007 and 2.6.2008 apart from the order of the engagement of the appellants. A composite reading of all the circulars shows that the appellants were engaged for a specific period i.e. till the end of the month of April 2009 or even prior, if selected candidates are available. A composite reading of all the circulars shows that the appellants were engaged for a specific period i.e. till the end of the month of April 2009 or even prior, if selected candidates are available. The circulars do not make a mention regarding re-engagement of the appellants in the subsequent academic year, thus in those circumstances, if the appellants are not continued beyond April 2009, question of salary of summer vacation does not arise. It seems that the Officer issued circular dated 26.11.2008 was quite casual in his approach, thus in the absence of the stipulation in the earlier circulars for re-engagement of the appellants for the commencement of new academic year, the appellants cannot be held entitled for wages of summer vacations. Accordingly, even the last issue raised by the appellants found devoid of merit and therefore, same is decided against them. 15. In view of the discussion made above, we find no merit in these appeals and accordingly, all the appeals so preferred by the appellants are dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the appeals have been decided on the issues raised therein and the outcome of the appeals would, however, not effect the appeals so preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the same judgment.Appeals dismissed. *******