JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioners are allegedly working as Shiksha Mitra in Primary Schools in the district of Pilibhit. Their prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondent-State to extend them the benefit of regular pay scale as being paid to the regular Assistant Teachers of Primary Schools/Junior Basic Schools in the State. In essence, the argument is of equal pay for equal work. 2. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner contends that since the petitioners are performing the same nature of duties, with the same working hours as that of the regular Assistant Teachers, therefore, they should be paid the same salary. 3. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the petitioners form a different class and that being a reasonable classification, the petitioners cannot claim equal pay for equal work. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and it is evident that the petitioners are appointed on an honorarium upon being selected by the Village Education Committee on the basis of their High School and Intermediate marks. They do not face any regular selection as contemplated under U.P. Basic Education Act and Rules framed thereunder. Their nature of engagement is absolutely temporary and is at the discretion of the Village Education Committee. The tenure, which is subject to renewal, is at a stretch for one Session only. It is, thus, clear that the mode of recruitment, qualification and other service conditions are entirely different. A Shiksha Mitra does not hold a substantive post. 5. As against this, a regular teacher is appointed under the Rules framed by the State Government under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, after facing a Selection Committee and after an approval by the Basic Education Officer. The qualification is entirely different. Thus, there is a distinct method of recruitment and appointment of Shiksha Mitra which is in the nature of a stop gap arrangement. The Supreme Court has in several cases ruled that where the source of recruitment is different and the qualifications are also at variance, there is no formula under which such parity of pay scale can be claimed. Reference may be had to the decision in the cases of Gabriel Saver Fernandes and others v. The State of Karnataka and others, 1994 (5) SLR 625 and Deb Narayan Shyam and others v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 2005 SC 1167. 6. Reference may be had to the decision in the cases of Gabriel Saver Fernandes and others v. The State of Karnataka and others, 1994 (5) SLR 625 and Deb Narayan Shyam and others v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 2005 SC 1167. 6. The petitioners are Shiksha Mitra and, therefore, they form a different class as their mode of recruitment and employment as well as the terms of engagement are different. 7. In view of the aforesaid conclusions drawn, the claim of the petitioners is absolutely misplaced and the writ petition is dismissed. ————