JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. I have perused the judgment prepared by my esteemed brother Justice V.K. Sharma. I respectfully disagree with my brother Judge and, therefore, deem it appropriate to express my opinion separately. 2. THE group of petitions, which we have heard together, essentially form two sets of teachers engaged by the School Management Committees (hereinafter referred to as the SMCs), namely, teachers working in tribal/difficult areas and the other being non tribal/non difficult areas. However, the reliefs claimed in each of these petitions are similar with little variations. The petitioners have essentially sought direction against the State Authorities, inter alia, to pay the salary to the petitioners equal to the salary of the teachers working on the similar posts as regular teachers; to frame appropriate policy for giving training to the petitioners, if required, and to regularise them from the date of their joining as teachers; to release the balance of the salary of the petitioners after calculating the same equal to the regular teachers of the same post and to pay appropriate interest on the said balance salary amount, as may be determined by the Court; and not to dispense with the services of the petitioners and instead allow them to continue as teachers on the post held by them in the concerned School. Although the concerned SMCs have been impleaded as respondents, they have not chosen to appear in the proceedings, except in Writ Petition No.4258 of 2013. 3. BEFORE dealing with the contentious issues, it is worthwhile to mention that during the course of arguments, the counsel appearing for the petitioners have fairly given up the relief claimed by the respective petitioners for regularisation and also regarding equal pay for equal work, as claimed. These reliefs have been given up realizing that none of the petitioners were appointed in selection process followed as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the State Government, nor were holding civil posts. Further, the appointments of the respective petitioners by the concerned SMCs as teachers were on period basis and not as full time teacher as such. 4. THAT leaves us essentially with three other broad reliefs claimed by the petitioners. Firstly, to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service until the regular teachers are appointed after following procedure prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 4. THAT leaves us essentially with three other broad reliefs claimed by the petitioners. Firstly, to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service until the regular teachers are appointed after following procedure prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Secondly, the State Authorities must be made responsible to bear the financial burden arising out of the employment of the petitioners on contract basis by the concerned SMCs, by providing grant in aid to the respective SMCs to enable them to disburse the remunerations payable to the petitioners, as most of the petitioners were working without any remuneration whatsoever. Thirdly, the petitioners who have been appointed on contract basis by the SMCs must be paid on similar lines as given to PTA teachers and Vidya Upasaks. As brother Justice Sharma has referred to the relevant provisions, I do not wish to reproduce the same in my judgment in entirety except the relevant provision wherever necessary, to avoid duplication. 5. I shall first deal with the relief claimed by the petitioners that the State Authorities be directed to pay the remuneration of the petitioners by way of grant in aid to the concerned SMCs, so that it can be disbursed to the petitioners. While considering this issue, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that there are large number of teachers similarly placed as that of the petitioners before this Court. As per the figure disclosed by the petitioners themselves, it is not less than 7000 teachers who have been appointed by different SMCs across the State. There can be no doubt that if it is obligatory for the State to appoint such contract teachers to discharge its obligation under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2009), the State cannot be heard to make grievance about financial implications and impossibility to undertake that obligation. Inasmuch as, the Act of 2009, by virtue of Section 8, casts duty on the State Government to provide free and compulsory elementary education to every child in the State. Similar obligation is cast on the Local Authority by virtue of Section 9 of the Act of 2009. Inasmuch as, the Act of 2009, by virtue of Section 8, casts duty on the State Government to provide free and compulsory elementary education to every child in the State. Similar obligation is cast on the Local Authority by virtue of Section 9 of the Act of 2009. Section 6 of the Act of 2009 postulates that it is the duty of the appropriate Government and Local Authority to establish school within such area or limits of neighbourhood, as may be prescribed, where it is not so established, within a period of three years from the commencement of the Act. The financial liability for establishment and running of the Elementary Schools is jointly on the Central Government and the State Governments, as Section 7 predicates that the Central Government and the State Government shall take concurrent responsibility for providing funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act. 6. IN none of the petitions before us, the grievance is about non establishment of schools by the State Government or Local Authorities as per the norms prescribed by the Act of 2009 and Rules framed thereunder; nor the grievance is about not providing necessary organisational structure in those schools, except in CWP No.5098 of 2013, wherein it is asserted that for running of the school referred to in the said petition, all the teachers appointed are through concerned SMC on contract basis. In so far as the school referred to in this petition, that the State Authorities have failed to appoint regular teachers, but that issue will have to be answered independently. The moot question is whether the State Authorities can be made responsible for the appointments of teachers on contract basis made by the concerned SMC across the State? For answering the issue, it is elementary to first examine whether the SMC had authority to make such appointments? That will have to be answered on the basis of the scheme announced by the State Government, which form part of the communication, dated 6th March, 2010, issued under the signature of Principal Secretary (Education) addressed to the Director (Elementary Education). This scheme was obviously made in anticipation of coming into force of Article 21A of the Constitution and the Act of 2009. Both these provisions came into force w.e.f. 1st April, 2010. This scheme was obviously made in anticipation of coming into force of Article 21A of the Constitution and the Act of 2009. Both these provisions came into force w.e.f. 1st April, 2010. Article 21A, no doubt, mandates that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age between 6 to 14 years in such a manner as the State, by law, determines. The Act of 2009 is the law enacted on that subject, which has also come into force w.e.f. 1st April, 2010. Section 21 of the Act of 2009 envisages that every school, other than unaided school not receiving any kind of grant or aid to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the Local Authority, shall constitute a School Management Committee (SMC) consisting of the elected representatives of the Local Authority, parents or guardians of children admitted in such schools and the teachers. The first proviso to Section 21 stipulates that at least three fourth members of such Committee shall be parents or guardians. The second proviso envisages that proportionate representation shall be given to the parents or guardians of children belonging to disadvantaged group and weaker section; and the third proviso predicates that 50% of members of such Committee shall be women. Sub section (2) of Section 21 defines the functions to be performed by the SMC. The same reads thus: "(2) The School Management Committee shall perform the following functions, namely: (a) Monitor the working of the school; (b) Prepare and recommend school development plan; (c) Monitor the utilisation of the grants received from the appropriate Government or local authority or any other source; and (d) Perform such other functions as may be prescribed: Provided that the school Management Committee constituted under sub section (1) in respect of, (a) a School established and administered by minority whether based on religion or language; and (b) all other aided schools as defined in sub section (ii) of clause (n) of section 2, shall perform advisory function only." 7. NOTABLY, Section 21, per se, does not provide for making appointment of teachers on contract basis or otherwise as one of the function of the SMC. NOTABLY, Section 21, per se, does not provide for making appointment of teachers on contract basis or otherwise as one of the function of the SMC. No doubt, in addition to the functions specified in sub clause (a) to (c) of sub section (2), it is open to frame Rules to entrust further functions to be discharged by the SMC, as sub clause (d) of sub section (2) is a residuary provision, but circumscribed by the functions to be prescribed. The expression "prescribed" has been defined in Section 2(l) to mean prescribed by rules made under the Act of 2009. 8. A priori, we may have to now turn to the provisions in the Rules framed under the Act of 2009 known as the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010, which have come into force w.e.f. 9th April, 2010. These are Central Rules. Rule 3 deals with the composition and functions of the School Management Committee. Sub rule (6) of Rule 3 provides for additional functions besides the functions of the SMCs specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub section (2) of Section 21 of the Act. These are Central Rules. Rule 3 deals with the composition and functions of the School Management Committee. Sub rule (6) of Rule 3 provides for additional functions besides the functions of the SMCs specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub section (2) of Section 21 of the Act. The same reads thus: "(6) The said Committee shall, in addition to the functions specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub section (2) of section 21, perform the following functions, namely: (a) communicate in simple and creative ways to the population in the neighbourhood of the school, the rights of the child as enunciated in the Act; as also the duties of the appropriate Government, local authority, school, parent and guardian; (b) ensure the implementation of clauses (a) and (e) of section 24 and of section 28; (c) monitor that teachers are not burdened with non academic duties other than those specified in section 27; rt (d) ensure the enrolment and continued attendance of all the children from the neighbourhood in the school; ou (e) monitor the maintenance of the norms and standards specified in the schedule: (f) bring to the notice of the local authority any deviation from the rights of the child, in particular mental and physical harassment of children, denial of admission and timely provision of free entitlements as per sub section (2) of section 3; (g) identify the needs, prepare a plan, and monitor the implementation of the provisions of Section 4; (h) monitor the identification and enrolment of, and facilities for education of children with disability, and ensure their participation in and completion of elementary education; (i) monitor the implementation of the mid day meal in the school; (j) prepare an annual account of receipts and expenditure of the school." On a plain reading of the above provision, it is obvious that even the Central Rules do not envisage vesting of authority in the SMC to make appointments of teachers on contract basis. There is no other provision in the Rules which would remotely suggest that such authority vests in the SMC. 9. WE may now turn to the Rules framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 38 of the Act of 2009, known as the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Himachal Pradesh Rules, 2011, (hereinafter referred to as the State Rules). 9. WE may now turn to the Rules framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 38 of the Act of 2009, known as the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Himachal Pradesh Rules, 2011, (hereinafter referred to as the State Rules). These Rules have come into force w.e.f. 5th March, 2011. Part VII of the Rules deals with the subject of teachers. Rule 13 prescribes for minimum qualification for the purposes of Section 23 of the Act of 2009 to be possessed by the person to be appointed as teacher in every school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act of 2009. Rule 10. PRESCRIBES for acquiring minimum qualifications under proviso to Section 23(2) of the Act. This provision would apply to all teachers in the specified schools, who are already working in such schools, but do not possess the minimum qualifications laid down in at the time of commencement of the Act, with mandate to acquire such qualifications within a period of five years from the commencement of the Act. Much emphasis was placed at Rule 15 of the State Rules, which reads thus: "15. Salary and allowances and conditions of service of teachers for the purpose of section 23(3) The salary and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service teachers of schools specified in sub clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2, shall be as may be specified by the State Government from time to time through its various Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the respective posts and other orders/ instructions issued by the State Government. Provided that the State Government may through a scheme notified by it, allow the School Management Committee to engage teachers on part time or temporary basis and pay them at such rates as are specified in the instructions issued by the State Government." 14. No doubt, this Rule does not ex facie make any distinction between the services of teachers of the schools appointed on regular basis and contract basis. It envisages that the salary and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of teachers of specified schools shall be as provided by the State Government from time to time through its various Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the respective posts and other orders/instructions by the State Government. It envisages that the salary and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of teachers of specified schools shall be as provided by the State Government from time to time through its various Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the respective posts and other orders/instructions by the State Government. Since the State Rules refer to Recruitment and Promotion Rules, it would necessarily follow that this provision must apply to teachers appointed as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is for that reason, proviso has been added to Rule 15, which contemplates that the State Government may, "through a scheme" notified by it, allow the School Management Committee to engage teachers on part time or temporary basis and pay them at such rates as are specified in the instructions issued by the State Government. This provision is, therefore, an enabling provision authorizing the State to formulate a scheme to allow the School Management Committee to engage teachers on part time or temporary basis. The petitioners before this Court have admittedly been appointed by the concerned SMCs on contract basis and have been working in that capacity. Admittedly, no scheme has been formulated by the State Government, allowing the School Management Committees in non tribal/non difficult areas, (hereinafter referred to as the non tribal areas), to engage teachers on part time or temporary basis, as of now. As a concomitant, it must follow that the State Government, in law, has not authorized the SMCs in non tribal areas in the State of Himachal Pradesh to engage teachers on part time or temporary basis. In that case, the liability of payment of remuneration or to provide for grant in aid for that purpose cannot be fastened on the State Government at all. 11. I may not be understood to have examined the question: whether the appointments so made by the concerned SMCs would be nullity in law. For the time being, I will assume that the concerned SMCs in non tribal areas proceeded to make such appointments in good faith and at best, committed some irregularity. But that would not absolve the concerned SMC to pay adequate and the agreed remuneration to the petitioners and similarly placed persons appointed by it, being their employer. The said SMCs will have to discharge that obligation qua the petitioners and similarly placed persons appointed by them. But that would not absolve the concerned SMC to pay adequate and the agreed remuneration to the petitioners and similarly placed persons appointed by it, being their employer. The said SMCs will have to discharge that obligation qua the petitioners and similarly placed persons appointed by them. It is not open to the concerned SMCs to disown that liability having made appointments of teachers on contract basis without any authority from the State in that behalf. 12. LET us turn to the Scheme formulated by the State in March, 2010, as was issued in anticipation of coming into force of Article 21A of the Constitution and the Act of 2009. Clause 3 of the said Scheme provides for constitution of School Management Committee. The powers and responsibilities of School Management Committee are spelt out in clause (4), which reads thus: "4. Power and responsibilities of School Management Committee School Management Committee with the help of its executive committee will have the authority to perform following functions: 4.1 Steps would be taken for enrolment, ensure retention and reduce dropout to achieve the Universalization of education. 4.2 To ensure quality education and to monitor learning level of students regularly. Student's evaluation will be monitored by the system of Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation and the progress cards should be discussed with parents and remedial steps to be taken accordingly. 4.3 To develop, implement and monitor School development plan. 4.4. To ensure proper utilization of grants received from government and any other agency. 4.5 To ensure timely availability of free text books, writing material, uniform, grants and scholarships to the students. 4.6 To ensure the implementation, quality and monitoring of Mid Day Meal. 4.7 To provide clean drinking water and toilet facility and to ensure cleanliness of toilets and school premises. 4.8 To organize regular medical checkup for students in convergence with department of Health and also to maintain health cards. 4.9 To ensure the implementation of provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Elementary Education Act 2009. 4.10 En sure regular attendance of students and teachers. School Management will be empowered to bring to the notice of CHT/BEEOs for necessary action, the instances of absence and irregularity in absorbing school timings by teachers. CHT/BEEOs will take necessary action on the request and inform the same to Deputy Director Education. 4.10 En sure regular attendance of students and teachers. School Management will be empowered to bring to the notice of CHT/BEEOs for necessary action, the instances of absence and irregularity in absorbing school timings by teachers. CHT/BEEOs will take necessary action on the request and inform the same to Deputy Director Education. If in the general house of any recommendation is made in this context, then departmental officer will be bound to take time bound decision in the matter. 4.11 If in the general house of the SMC while praising the special contribution of any teacher in the development of the school or the students, in its last meeting of the academic session recommends that such teacher should not be transferred and the General house sends such resolution to the Dy.Director of education, then such teachers shall not be transferred from such school during the next one session. Similarly, if the General house of the SMC is not satisfied with the work of any teacher and that teacher has completed here/his normal tenure in the school, such teacher shall be transferred from that school. Such matters can be taken up for discussion only during the meeting convened after declaration of examination result and in no other meeting such decision can be taken. 4.12 The School Management Committee will carry out the annual appraisal of the work done by the part time and the contract workers and the renewal of the contract will be done on the recommendation of the School Management Committee. 4.13 In proper identification of CWSN and bring them within the fold of integrated education. 4.14 To provide support in the co curricular programmes, Bal Melas, science fairs and sports activities and increase the participation of the community. 4.15 To make various purchases for the school, subject to budget availability, for instance, the Teaching Learning Material, furniture, stationary and other items required for the school, lab instruments, library books, writing material for the students as per government schemes, various kits, school dresses, computer and related equipment etc. 4.16 To carry out the constructions work/repair work of the school building and other infrastructural facilities. The SMC will have the . authority to carry out the construction/repairs itself or get it done as per the directions. For this purpose, the SMC may constitute a sub committee or may enter into a contract with a competent institution or the Panchayat. 4.16 To carry out the constructions work/repair work of the school building and other infrastructural facilities. The SMC will have the . authority to carry out the construction/repairs itself or get it done as per the directions. For this purpose, the SMC may constitute a sub committee or may enter into a contract with a competent institution or the Panchayat. 4.17 The utilization of the annual school grant and the maintenance grant shall also be done through the School Management Committee. 4.18 Ensure proper utilization of the library available in the school for increasing the habit of reading among the students. 4.19 If required, to select the part time/contract teachers as per the Government Policy but the SMC will not have the authority to appoint any part time/contract worker without the approval of the authorised officer. 4.20 Submit the annual report of the SMC in the General House and to make available its one copy to the concerned Gram Panchayat and the Centre Head Teacher. 4.21 Resources of the School Management Committee." Neither the petitioners nor the SMCs can rely on any of the provisions except clauses 4.17 and 4.19 to further their claim against the State Government. Clause 4.17 obliges the SMC to ensure that the utilization of the annual school grant and the maintenance grant should be done by it. This clause will not create any right whatsoever, muchless vested right, in the petitioners or the SMCs in non tribal areas to assert that the State is obliged to provide additional grant in aid to the said SMCs for having engaged teachers on contract basis sans such authority bestowed on the SMC in the non tribal areas. Clause 4.19, on which much reliance was placed, will also be of no avail to the petitioners who have been engaged as teachers on contract basis by the SMCs in non tribal areas. Inasmuch as clause 4.19 is only an enabling provision allowing the SMC to select teachers on part time/contract basis, provided, there is prior Government policy in place in that behalf and further only if prior approval of the Authorised Officer has been obtained for such appointments. 13. AS regards the non tribal areas, the State Government, admittedly, has not announced any policy of making appointments of teachers on part time/contract basis by the respective SMCs. 13. AS regards the non tribal areas, the State Government, admittedly, has not announced any policy of making appointments of teachers on part time/contract basis by the respective SMCs. The fact that the SMCs in non tribal areas were submitting periodical reports to the State Authorities from time to time indicative of appointments of contract teachers by them, such as petitioners and similarly placed persons, cannot be the basis to fasten liability on the State Government regarding the remuneration to be paid to such appointees. For, the SMCs in non tribal areas were not delegated with such authority by the State Government either on case to case basis or for that matter, by a general policy. Since there was no policy in place for appointment of teachers on contract basis in non tribal areas, the question of nominating any Authorised Officer to grant approval to the appointments of teachers on contract basis by the SMCs in non tribal areas did not arise at all. In other words, non responsiveness of the State Authorities in reacting to the periodical reports submitted by the Concerned SMC in non tribal area would not make any difference nor can it be the basis to fasten liability on the State Government for such appointments. It is the concerned SMC in non tribal area which is accountable for the situation and would be liable to pay the remuneration of contract teachers appointed by it from time to time. 14. THE question is from where the SMC can generate finance to discharge such liability. For that, we may turn to clause 5.1 of the Scheme, dated 6th March, 2010. The same reads thus: "5.1 The financial resources of the School Management . Committee may be received from the following sources: 5.1.1 Out of the grants received from the government, the School Grant, maintenance grant, Grant in aid, building grant or other budgetary allocation made by the government. 5.1.2 Out of the grants as may be given to the SMC by the Non government organizations, local bodies (urban and rural) 5.1.3 Voluntary donation/deposits by the parents/community members. 5.1.4 The fees of the utilization of school premises for fairs or other community objectives. 5.1.5 The bank account of the funds of the SMC will be opened and run under the joint signatures of the President and the Member Secretary. 5.1.4 The fees of the utilization of school premises for fairs or other community objectives. 5.1.5 The bank account of the funds of the SMC will be opened and run under the joint signatures of the President and the Member Secretary. In case of change of President after the first annual meeting, the signature of the new President shall be conveyed to the Bank. 5.1.6 The annual accounts of the expenditure incurred will be submitted by the Member Secretary for the perusal of the general house and will be made available for social audit or for audit to the agency authorized by the government for audit." Clause 5.1.1 postulates that the Government would give grants to the SMC which, amongst others, would form the corpus of the SMC. The State Government is obliged to pay grants to the SMC only in relation to the specified and permitted items by the State Government be it of infrastructure or organisational structure. As the SMC was not authorised by the State Government under any policy or specific order of the competent Authority of the State to engage teachers on contract basis in non tribal areas, there would be no liability on the State Government to pay by way of grants to be disbursed to the contract teachers so appointed by the SMCs. The other head from which finance resource can be generated by the SMC is from the non government organisations, local bodies (urban or rural) as per clause 5.1.2. If the concerned SMCs are in financial difficulty in paying the remuneration due and payable to the teachers appointed by it on contract basis, they must take initiative of generating finance from non government organisations, local bodies. However, the SMCs in non tribal areas cannot disown its liability to pay the amount to the respective teachers appointed by it on contract basis. There is another source from where the concerned SMC in non tribal area can generate funds. As per clauses 5.1.3 and 5.1.4, the concerned SMC can use its good office to generate voluntary donation/deposits by the parents/community members and the fees of the utilization of the school premises for fairs or other community objectives to salvage the situation, which is its own creation. 15. As per clauses 5.1.3 and 5.1.4, the concerned SMC can use its good office to generate voluntary donation/deposits by the parents/community members and the fees of the utilization of the school premises for fairs or other community objectives to salvage the situation, which is its own creation. 15. TO put it differently, the concerned SMCs in non tribal areas are solely responsible for the situation and will have to discharge its legal obligation in paying remuneration to the teachers appointed by it on contract basis and cannot insist for funds to be made available by the State Government. Accepting the claim of the petitioners to issue direction to the State Authorities to arrange for their remuneration, which, in any case, cannot be done in law, inevitably, it would extricate the SMC from its responsibility. Significantly, no material has been placed before the Court by any of the petitioners, except in CWP No.5098 of 2013, that the SMC was forced to make appointment of teachers on contract basis, as no regular teacher appointed by following procedure prescribed as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules was available to run the school. It will be preposterous to assume, as of fact, that every appointments made by the concerned SMC in non tribal area were on account of State Government's failure to ensure that regular teachers are appointed by following Recruitment and Promotion Rules before the commencement of the academic year. 16. ASSUMING that the State Government or the concerned State Authorities have failed to ensure that regular teachers are appointed in the concerned school by following Recruitment and Promotion Rules before the commencement of the academic year, that cannot be the basis to shift the liability of the SMCs in non tribal areas to pay remuneration of teachers appointed by it on contract basis on the State Government. At best, in such cases, the Court may direct the State Government to take immediate steps to fill up the regular posts by following Recruitment and Promotion Rules, as that process cannot brook delay. Such direction can be justified on the basis of the avowed objects and reasons for which Article 21A, has been inserted in the Constitution and including the enactment of the Act of 2009. Such direction can be justified on the basis of the avowed objects and reasons for which Article 21A, has been inserted in the Constitution and including the enactment of the Act of 2009. As regards, Writ Petition No.5098 of 2013, pertaining to school in non tribal area, the State Government/State Authorities should and must take immediate steps to fill up the vacant posts of teachers by regular teachers appointed as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, either by making new appointments or transferring regular teachers from other areas to that school. To conclude the discussion on this issue, I hold that the petitioners and similarly placed teachers appointed on contract basis by the SMCs in non tribal areas would be entitled to remuneration as per their contract with the concerned SMC, from the concerned SMC; and cannot claim direction against the State Authorities or the State Government to pay their remuneration or provide additional or proportionate additional grants to the concerned SMC in non tribal area. In other words, the petitioners serving in non tribal areas as contract teachers and similarly placed persons cannot be denied their remuneration. The concerned SMC, who has appointed them, shall be liable to discharge that obligation and pay their remuneration, as and when due, as agreed and mentioned in the contract between the SMC and the concerned employee. There is no lis between the petitioners and similarly placed persons serving in non tribal areas with the State Government. Further, going by the provisions of the Act of 2009 and the Rules and including the scheme, no liability can be fastened on the State Government for the unauthorised acts of the concerned SMCs in non tribal area. 17. THE argument of the petitioners that it is the solemn obligation of the State Government to guarantee imparting quality elementary education to the children below the age of 14 years not only on account of the Act of 2009 but also the mandate of Article 21A of the Constitution of India, does not mean that the State should be saddled with the consequences arising out of the unauthorized act of the SMCs in non tribal area of appointing large number of teachers on contract basis, without any authority in that behalf given by the State Government. As noted earlier, none of the petitions disclose any material facts to even remotely suggest that the State has failed to establish schools as per the norms specified by the Act of 2009 and Rules framed thereunder. It is not as if the petitioners were required to be appointed by the SMCs to run respective schools in non tribal areas in absence of regular organizational infrastructure provided to the School by way of grants given by the State Government therefor. It is possible that in some cases, the SMC may have appointed contract teachers to provide better facilities to the children of the concerned School but that is a unilateral act and decision taken by the concerned SMC and not on the basis of any authority flowing from the provisions of the Act of 2009 and Rules framed thereunder or for that matter Policy of the State Government for that purpose, as in the case of tribal areas. Understood thus, it is the concerned SMC who must be held responsible for the situation and would be, therefore, liable to discharge its obligation to pay remuneration to the contract teachers so appointed by it. 18. I am not impressed by the vague and unsubstantiated assertion of the petitioners that the decision of the State Government to dispense with the services of the petitioners and similarly placed contract teachers appointed by the SMCs in non tribal areas across the State, is due to political vendetta as a consequence of change of political dispensation. That argument cannot be the basis to grant relief to the petitioners against the State Government for payment of their remuneration. Conceding to this argument would inevitably result in giving relief to the concerned SMCs who have exceeded their authority in making appointments of contract teachers. It would be certainly a case of misplaced sympathy which ought to be eschewed as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another versus Kartick Chandra Mondal and another (2010) 2 SCC 422 . The Court observed that the Court should not be swayed by misplaced sympathy in granting relief of re engagement and regularization of service in respect of irregular appointees/casual workers who were not recruited through proper procedure. The Court observed that the Court should not be swayed by misplaced sympathy in granting relief of re engagement and regularization of service in respect of irregular appointees/casual workers who were not recruited through proper procedure. The fact that the petitioners and similarly placed contract teachers in non tribal areas were appointed by the SMCs across the State, albeit constituted under the statutory provision, sans any authorization in that behalf, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be regular appointments and in any case, made the basis to fasten liability on the State Government regarding their remuneration. It would be apposite to reproduce paragraphs 24 & 25 of the abovesaid decision, which read thus: "24. In our considered opinion, the ratio of both the aforesaid decisions are clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our considered opinion, there is misplaced sympathy shown in the case of the respondents who have worked with the appellants only for two years, i.e., from 1981 to 1983. 25. Even assuming that the similarly placed persons were ordered to be absorbed, the same if done erroneously cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further appointment. An erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general welfare of the public or a considerable section. This has been the consistent approach of this Court. However, we intend to refer to a latest decision of this Court on this point in the case of State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh & Others [(2009) 5 SCC 69], the relevant portion of which is extracted here-in-below: "67. By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order" ........." [A reference in this regard may also be made to the earlier decisions of this Court. See also: (1) Faridabad CT. See also: (1) Faridabad CT. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services and Others [ (1997) 7 SCC 752 ]; (2) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Others [ (2003) 8 SCC 648 ] and (3) Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and Another v. State of J&K and Others [(2008) 9 SCC 24]]" It is well established position that it is for the State to formulate policies and not for the Courts to do so. Whether the SMCs in the non tribal areas should be authorized to make appointments of teachers on contract basis is certainly a matter of Policy. Before taking any policy decision in this behalf, several factors have to be reckoned by the State Government and it is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State. The Apex Court in the case of P.U. Joshi and versus Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others (2003) 2 SCC 632 in others paragraph 10 observed thus: "10. We have carefully considered the sub missions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substruction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/ posts. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/ posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service." 19. THE petitioners would, however, rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal versus Union of India and others (2012) 6 SCC 502 to contend that it is open to the Court and also its judicial duty to ensure that rule of law prevails. The Court must issue directions to the State Government to formulate Policy, even with regard to the non tribal areas, as has been done with regard to tribal areas. This must be done in view of the legitimate expectation of large number of contract teachers appointed by the SMCs in non tribal areas. Failure to do so by the State Government, results in discriminatory treatment meted out to the contract teachers between tribal areas and non tribal areas, which ought not to be countenanced. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Environmental and Consumer Protection Foundation versus Delhi Administration and others2012 (10) SCC 211, to contend that it is well established by now that it is the obligation of the State to effectuate the rights of children of elementary schools and to provide them basic facilities and necessities. In that case, the State Government has no choice but to provide adequate number of teachers in every school commensurate with the norms specified under the Act of 2009 and Rules framed thereunder. In that case, the State Government has no choice but to provide adequate number of teachers in every school commensurate with the norms specified under the Act of 2009 and Rules framed thereunder. This argument deserves to be stated to be rejected inasmuch as the State Government has given valid and tangible reason as to why it became necessary for the State Government to evolve a Policy for appointment of contract teachers in tribal areas. The experience showed that teachers appointed on regular basis were un willing to work in tribal areas and the only way to fill up the vacant posts of teachers in the schools in tribal areas was to provide interim arrangement by appointing contract teachers. In other words, the State Government was forced to introduce Policy to appoint contract teachers in tribal areas out of necessity and not by choice. The Scheme formulated by the State Government and notified by the Secretary (Education) Government of Himachal Pradesh on 17.7.2012 reads thus: "Procedure for the appointment of a Teacher by the SMC to the educational Institutions of Tribal/ Difficult Areas. The School Management Committees of the educational institutions located in the Tribal/Difficult areas have requested to fill up vacant posts of teachers in their schools. The Government is making all efforts to fill up all the vacant posts in the educational institutions in the State but even then some posts in the Tribal/Difficult areas remain vacant due to retirement, transfers, promotions etc. As such the studies of the students suffers badly. Keeping in view the betterment of the study of students in these area, it has been decided by the Government to permit the School Management Committees of educational institution situated in Tribal/Difficult areas as notified by the by the Department of Personnel (Annexure I), to provide the teachers against vacant post as per the clause 15 of the "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Himachal Pradesh, Rules 2011" and para 4.19 of the guidelines issued by the Government for the constitution of School Management Committees in the educational institutions under the "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Himachal Pradesh Act, 2009". The Government hereby frames the following procedure for the appointment of teachers through the SMCs purely on period basis: 1. The SMC of the concerned educational Institution will submit request through the Head of the Institution to the respective Dy. The Government hereby frames the following procedure for the appointment of teachers through the SMCs purely on period basis: 1. The SMC of the concerned educational Institution will submit request through the Head of the Institution to the respective Dy. Director of Education to allow them to provide the teacher against vacant post on period basis. The Head of the Institution will ensure that the teaching posts in his/her school are as per PTR norms. No posts will be filled up excess than PTR/Rationalization norms. 2. The concerned Dy. Director of Education after verifying the vacancies likely posting either on recruitment, transfers, promotion, availability of post as per PTR norms etc. may allow the SMC to provide the eligible teacher on period basis. 3. The concerned SMC of the Primary and Middle Schools will make an open advertisement at the Gram Panchayat/Nagar Panchayat/Urban local are and the SMC of the High and Senior Secondary Schools will make advertisement in all the Panchayats in the Patwar Circle of the concerned area also and ask all eligible candidates to apply within 15 days for said period based assignment. . 4. Member of the selection committee will be as under: 1. President SMC 2. Head of the Institution cum Member Secretary of SMC. 3. Subject expert from outside the concerned Institution. 4. Senior most Regular Teacher of the concerned institution. (If the regular Teacher is not available in the concerned institution, the same be called from the adjoining institution). 5. The SMC will conduct an interview and follow distribution of Marks for evaluation during the course of Selection Process as per Annexure II. Preference will be given to local eligible candidates. 6. After conducting the interview, the President of the SMC will declare the result and issue order of assignment to the eligible candidate(s). 7. The Head of the Institution after verifying all the credentials, which include educational certificates as per R and P Rules and instructions issued by the Government, character certificates issued by the competent authority etc. will accept the joining of the said candidate(s). 8. The Head of the Institutions will ensure that no ineligible candidate joins the educational institution for teaching the students on period basis. If, it is found that the Head of Institution has permitted an ineligible candidate, the disciplinary action will be initiated against him/her as per the CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules, 1964. 9. 8. The Head of the Institutions will ensure that no ineligible candidate joins the educational institution for teaching the students on period basis. If, it is found that the Head of Institution has permitted an ineligible candidate, the disciplinary action will be initiated against him/her as per the CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules, 1964. 9. The Head of the Institutions ensure that the services of the said SMC provided teachers will automatically be terminated as and when regular/contract teacher appointed/transferred by the Government joins against the said post or after completion of the academic session of the institution, whichever is earlier. 10. In the next academic session, a fresh selection process will be conducted. In no case, the SMC provided teacher earlier be allowed to be continue after completion of academic session nor after the joining of regular / contract teacher appointed by the Government. 11. The Grant in Aid is permissible only in favour of those Teachers, who have been provided by the SMCs after following these terms and conditions only. 12. The Grant in Aid will be released by the Government to the SMCs only against the vacant posts of PGTs, TGTs, LTs, Shastris, JBTs only. No GIA will be released against any other posts. 13. The amount of Grant in Aid to a SMC in respect of a Teacher engaged on period basis shall be calculated / provided by the Government in the following manners: (ii) PGT Rs. 100/ per period (for 9th and 10th Classes.) . 2. TGT Rs. 100/ per period. 3. LT Rs. 75/ per period. 4. Shastri Rs. 75/ per period. 5. JBTs Rs. 75/ per period. 14. Limit of Grant The per month amount of GIA to a SMC provided teacher will not exceed the following limit: 1. PGT Rs. 6000/ PM 2. TGT Rs. 6000/ PM 3. LT Rs. 4500/ PM 4. Shastri Rs. 4500/ PM 4. JBTs Rs. 3500/ PM Any access amount, if any, will be born by the SMC of the concerned institute. 15. The Grant in Aid will be given by the Government only to the SMCs constituted in those institutions located in the Tribal/Difficult areas. 16. The Grant in Aid given by the Government for this purpose will be not be incurred for other purposes/works. 17. Application for Grant in Aid. 15. The Grant in Aid will be given by the Government only to the SMCs constituted in those institutions located in the Tribal/Difficult areas. 16. The Grant in Aid given by the Government for this purpose will be not be incurred for other purposes/works. 17. Application for Grant in Aid. The SMC, after providing the teacher on the period basis, submit an application for grant in aid in Form I. Character/antecedents of such teachers verified by a Gazetted Government officer should be enclosed with the application. Further, the request for grant in respect of teachers provided should be accompanied by a certificate from the Head of Institution to the effect that the work and conduct of the teachers was satisfactory. In case the educational institution does not have a regular Head of Institution, the request for grant should be accompanied by certificates from the teacher of the institution carrying out the functions of Head of Institution. 18. Non admissibility during vacations/Holidays. No grant shall be admissible to SMCs for teachers made available during the period of vacations/Holidays, unless specifically allowed by the Dy. Director of Education (Concerned) for reasons to be recorded in writing." 20. SUFFICE it to observe that the State Government is of the view that similar compulsion was not there in respect of non tribal areas due to availability of regular teachers. In none of the petitions except in CWP No. 5089 of 2013, it has even been remotely demonstrated that contract teachers were appointed by SMCs for want of regular teachers or the post of regular teachers were lying vacant to maintain the students teacher ratio as per the norms specified by the Act of 2009 and Rules framed thereunder. It may not be appropriate for this Court to make a roving inquiry to ascertain that factual position, or for that matter, to unravel the excess appointments made by the SMCs in the concerned Schools in non tribal areas for reasons best known to them. It may not be appropriate for this Court to make a roving inquiry to ascertain that factual position, or for that matter, to unravel the excess appointments made by the SMCs in the concerned Schools in non tribal areas for reasons best known to them. At best, this Court can ask the State Authorities to examine those matters and if it is found that substantial number of posts of regular teachers are lying vacant and not fulfilling the norms of students teacher ratio specified under the Act of 2009 and Rules framed thereunder, they can recommend to the State Government to formulate a policy to provide grant in aid qua those posts for appointment of teachers on contract basis. That, however, can be done only prospectively, as policy of the State cannot be given retrospective effect. Except these observations, nothing more is required to be said. Further, the fact that the SMCs in non tribal areas are constituted under the provisions of the Act of 2009 and Rules framed thereunder cannot be the basis to assume that they have had authority to appoint teachers on contract basis. The Committee constituted under the Statute is obliged to discharge its functions specified by the Statute i.e. under Section 21 read with the Act of 2009 and Rules framed thereunder. The appointments made by the SMCs in non tribal areas, therefore, cannot be treated as binding on the State Government and for which reason, it is not a case of State Government disowning its liability discharging its obligation specified in the Act of 2009 and under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. Thus, the appointments of contract teachers made by the SMCs in non tribal areas cannot be equated with teachers appointed on temporary basis by other Committees constituted under the instructions issued by the State Government; in the latter situation the contract teachers became entitled for benefit because of the policy of the State Government for which the State Government was liable to discharge its obligation, unlike in the present case where the contract teachers were appointed by the SMCs in non tribal areas bereft of any policy of the State Government in that behalf and sans any authorization to do so given by the State Government. It was the unilateral act of the SMCs in non tribal areas which cannot be the basis to hold the State Government responsible. 21. It was the unilateral act of the SMCs in non tribal areas which cannot be the basis to hold the State Government responsible. 21. SIMILARLY, the fact that the petitioners and similarly placed contract teachers have been appointed only for limited duration and re engaged by the concerned SMCs cannot create any right in their favour mushless to ask for relief against the State Government. It is well established position that the appointment on contract basis would come to an end as per the tenure specified in the contract between the employer and the employee, without requiring the employer to do anything further. In the case of Guru Charan Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others(2011) 13 SCC 37, the Court held that once a regular candidate was selected by the Selection Board and joined his duties, the appointment of another person made on temporary basis even if valid, would come to an end. There can be no vested right in the contract teacher to continue in employment even if the teacher appointed on regular basis becomes available. Appointment of the contract teachers, by its very nature, is an interim arrangement. 22. IT was vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioners that even if the petitioners cannot be regularized in service, the mandate of law obliges the State and in any case, the employer to offer at least basic pay equivalent to the minimum wages notified by the State Government. In most of the cases, the petitioners were not even receiving any amount leave alone respectable remuneration, for the services rendered by them. The petitioners and similarly placed contract teachers may pursue that remedy against the concerned SMCs under whose resolution they have been appointed; and for that they are free to make representation to the concerned State Authorities, who must decide their grievance with utmost dispatch. In case the appointment of the concerned contract teacher was unnecessary and in excess of the requirement of the school, the State Authorities must proceed against the members of the concerned SMCs for having abused their authority and for colourable exercise of power. In case the appointment of the concerned contract teacher was unnecessary and in excess of the requirement of the school, the State Authorities must proceed against the members of the concerned SMCs for having abused their authority and for colourable exercise of power. However, these arguments cannot be the basis to grant relief to the petitioners, as claimed of issuing directions to the State Government, to pay the remuneration to the petitioners and similarly placed contract teachers or for that matter, to provide additional grant in aid to the concerned SMCs commensurate with the remuneration to the contract teachers, appointed by concerned SMCs in non tribal areas in the State. As regards contract teachers appointed by the SMCs in tribal areas, under the Policy dated 17.7.2012, the learned Advocate General fairly stated that the State Government cannot refuse to discharge its obligation of providing grant in aid to concerned SMCs in the tribal areas as per the norms specified in the policy document. The grievance of the contract teachers appointed by the SMCs in tribal areas that they do not receive respectable remuneration clearly overlooks that their appointment is made by the SMCs, as per the Policy on period basis and not as regular teacher. The Policy is also intended to provide exposure to amateur teachers, after being appointed on contract basis. The fact that the posts of regular teachers in tribal areas are lying vacant does not mean that appointment to the said posts can be made through process other than R & P Rules. In other words, the contract teachers appointed by the SMCs in tribal areas under the stated Policy will have necessarily to be on period basis and not on regular basis. Accordingly, the grievance under consideration of the petitioners and similarly placed teachers appointed on contract basis by SMCs in tribal areas cannot be countenanced. 23. IT is not possible to sustain the grievance of the petitioners that they should be given similar benefits and treatment as has been given by the State Government to PTA teachers, Vidya Upasaks and other category of teachers, as per the instructions issued by the State Government. Even the argument of the petitioners, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhartiya Seva Smaj Trust and another versus Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel and another (2012) 9 SCC 310 , is devoid of merits. Even the argument of the petitioners, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhartiya Seva Smaj Trust and another versus Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel and another (2012) 9 SCC 310 , is devoid of merits. No doubt, in the abovesaid case, the Apex Court upheld the decision of the High Court re instating the teacher with back wages, however, the Court has reiterated that the Court should not set aside illegal order if it is to revive another illegal order. The final decision in the said case is in the fact situation of that case, as the Court found that the termination order passed by the Trust was malafide, as the Trust did not act in similar way for the same reason, against other teachers who were appointed alongwith the respondent in pursuance of similar advertisement and possessing similar qualification. 24. EVEN reliance placed on the decision in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan versus Union of India and another 2012(6) SCC 1 , is inapposite. In that case, the Court found that Sections 12(1) (c) and 18(3) of the Act of 2009 infringes fundamental freedom guaranteed to un aided minority schools under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India and for which reason, by interpretative process the Court held that those provisions were inapplicable to unaided minority schools. But, that judgment has been made operative prospectively from academic year 2012 2013. I fail to understand as to how the ratio of this judgment can be the basis to hold that the State Government must be made liable to pay remuneration to the petitioners and similarly placed contract teachers appointed by the concerned SMCs in non tribal areas or for that matter to equate them with other category of teachers appointed under scheme propounded by the State Government. The petitioners have lastly contended that until the regular teachers are appointed against the vacancies in the concerned schools, the petitioners and similarly placed contract teachers be allowed to continue in service. This argument is canvassed by relying on the exposition of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others versus Piara Singh and others (1992) 4 SCC 118 in particular paragraph 46, which reads thus: "46. This argument is canvassed by relying on the exposition of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others versus Piara Singh and others (1992) 4 SCC 118 in particular paragraph 46, which reads thus: "46. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority." 25. THIS argument will have to be stated to be rejected following the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 . In paragraphs 47 and 48, on which reliance has been justly placed by the learned Advocate General read thus: "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post. 48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known to them. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled." Further, the decision in Piara Singh's case on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners has been duly considered in Uma Devi's case. 26. RELIANCE has been justly placed by the learned Advocate General in the case of State of Haryana & others versus Polu Ram and another(2010) 15 SCC 452, in paragraphs 3 & 4 of this decision, the Court observed thus: "3. The State of Haryana is the appellant before us. CA No. 1143 of 2005 was filed against the judgment and final order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 17 4 1998 in Polu Ram v. State of Haryana by which the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents. The State of Haryana is the appellant before us. CA No. 1143 of 2005 was filed against the judgment and final order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 17 4 1998 in Polu Ram v. State of Haryana by which the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents. The judgment of the High Court was challenged by the State of Haryana on various grounds. According to the State, the respondents are not entitled to continue on the post after expiry of specified period and that they were appointed on a fixed term on a stopgap arrangement. It is further submitted that the High Court was in error in directing the State of Haryana to take the services of the respondents till the availability of regularly appointed candidates. Several other grounds have also been urged in the appeal. Notice was issued in the matter on 3 8 1998 and certain directions in regard to the payment of salary to the respondents were issued. During the pendency of these batch of appeals, several other interim directions were also issued. On 7 9 2005, this Court passed the following order: "The issue arising for decision in these matters is the same as forming the subject matter of reference order dated 23 8 2005 in State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh whereby the matter has been referred to a larger Bench. Let the decision of the larger Bench in those matters be awaited. All the pending applications will be taken up for consideration at the time of final hearing." 4. It is now brought to our notice that a Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) has delivered the judgment. The Constitution Bench has elaborately considered the rival claims of both the parties and rendered a detailed judgment on all aspects of the matter. In view of the appeals filed by the State of Haryana have to be allowed as prayed for. The same are accordingly allowed." In another case relied by the learned Advocate General in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another versus S.G. Kotturappa and another (2005) 3 SCC 409 , the Court observed that the services of temporary employee can be terminated upon compliance with the contractual or statutory requirements especially in a case such as the present one when the petitioners are not holding any civil post. In paragraphs 16 & 20 of the said decision, the Court observed thus: "16. The mode of appointment, therefore, postulates appointment in three tiers. The status of a temporary employee is higher than a Badli worker. The names of Badli workers are not to be included in the select list but in the wait list. A select list of selected candidates prepared by the selection authority is required to be equal to the number of existing vacancies plus vacancies that may arise over a period of one year from the date of publication as may be assessed by the selection authority and only in exceptional cases, the validity thereof can be extended for a period not exceeding six months. The select list or the wait list, as the case may be, therefore, does not have an indefinite life. A bare perusal of the memo dated 13 5 1982 in terms whereof the respondent was appointed clearly states that he was appointed in the Corporation and did not have any right merely because his services were so utilised on day to day basis. The services of a Badli worker may be discontinued, if for any reason he is not found suitable for the job for which his services were utilised as Badli. A Badli worker is eligible for payment of wages only for the number of days his services are utilized. 20. The terms and conditions of employment of a Badli worker may have a statutory flavour but the same would not mean that it is not otherwise contractual. So long as a worker remains a Badli worker, he does not enjoy a status. His services are not protected by reason of any provisions of the statute. He does not hold a civil post. A dispute as regards purported wrongful termination of services can be raised only if such termination takes place in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute governing the services. Services of a temporary employee or a Badli worker can be terminated upon compliance with the contractual or statutory requirements." 27. SUFFICE it to observe that the petitioners cannot succeed in getting relief of continuation beyond the term specified in the governing contract. Services of a temporary employee or a Badli worker can be terminated upon compliance with the contractual or statutory requirements." 27. SUFFICE it to observe that the petitioners cannot succeed in getting relief of continuation beyond the term specified in the governing contract. As regards the teachers appointed on contract basis by the SMCs in tribal areas under the Policy, clause 10 of the Policy clearly predicates that fresh selection process must be conducted before the next academic session. Further, in no case, the contract teachers appointed by the SMCs in tribal areas can be allowed to continue after completion of academic session nor after the joining of regular/contract teacher appointed by the government. In other words, the contract teachers have to participate in the fresh selection process whenever conducted and cannot claim any vested right so as to continue in service till the regular appointment is made as per the R & P Rules. As a result, even this argument of the petitioners deserves to be negatived. 28. REVERTING back to CWP No. 5098 of 2013, pertaining to the School in non tribal area as has been noted earlier, it is for the State Authorities to enquire into the reasons why the regular posts have been kept vacant in concerned school and issue directions for immediately starting the process of appointment on regular basis without any further delay and not waiting for the next academic session. It is not necessary to underscore that a regular establishment and appointment of regular teachers alone can accomplish the avowed objects of the Act of 2009 in providing quality education. The contract teachers should be appointed only in case of exigency and not as a regular feature and that too on year to year basis. For, it is not open to the State Government to urge about financial constraints after the coming into force of the Act of 2009 and more particularly Article 21A of the Constitution of India. If the State Government is incapable of supporting and financing the cause of compulsory elementary quality education to every children in the State, it must take up the matter with the Central Government, who is concurrently responsible for providing funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act of 2009, by virtue of Section 7 of the Act of 2009. If the State Government is incapable of supporting and financing the cause of compulsory elementary quality education to every children in the State, it must take up the matter with the Central Government, who is concurrently responsible for providing funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act of 2009, by virtue of Section 7 of the Act of 2009. Brother Sharma has referred to the decision of Patna High Court in the case of Renu Kumari Panday, which I do not wish to deal with as it was not relied by any party. 29. TAKING overall view of the matter, therefore, all these petitions will have to be disposed of on the basis of observations made hitherto and on following terms: Re: Non tribal areas. a) I reject the relief claimed against the State Government to bear the liability of remuneration of the petitioners and similarly placed persons appointed on contract basis by the SMCs in non tribal areas. b) The SMCs in non tribal areas shall pay the remuneration to the teachers appointed by it on contract basis for the period they have worked regularly as per the terms specified in the contract. c) The State Government may consider of formulating a policy to compensate the SMCs in non tribal areas by providing commensurate grant in aid in respect of contract teachers appointed by it due to fortuitous situation. d) The State Authorities shall make inquiry on case to case basis against the respective SMCs in non tribal areas and take action as may be warranted by law including against the members of the SMC. Re: Tribal Areas: a) The assurance given by the State through the learned Advocate General that the contract teachers appointed by the SMCs in tribal areas will be paid remuneration as per the policy document, is accepted. The contract teachers appointed by the SMCs in tribal areas would be entitled to receive amount as specified in the policy document dated 17.7.2012. Re: Tribal and non tribal areas: a) The relief of continuing the petitioners beyond the contract period and until the appointment of regular teacher by following R and P Rules, is rejected. b) The relief claimed by the petitioners to give similar benefit as given to PTA and Vidya Upasaks, is rejected. 30. THE Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. b) The relief claimed by the petitioners to give similar benefit as given to PTA and Vidya Upasaks, is rejected. 30. THE Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. In view of the divergence of opinion, the matter be placed before the third Judge. Office to take necessary steps in that behalf. 31. TWO sets of teachers engaged by the School Management Committees (SMCs) are before this court in this batch of writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The first set comprises of the teachers working in Tribal/Difficult Areas and the second in Non Tribal/Non Difficult Areas. 32. THE reliefs claimed by the petitioners in the respective sets of petitions are almost identical with slight variations here and there. In one of the petitions (CWP No. 5850 of 2013 E, Ms Menka and another Vs. The State of H.P and others) filed on behalf of the petitioners therein working in Tribal/Difficult Areas, the following substantive prayers have been made: "i) That the notification if any, issued by the Deputy Director Elementary Education for termination of the services of the petitioners made by the SMC, in view of Clause No. 10 of the policy notified vide notification dated 17.7.2012, may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That Clause No. 10 of the policy notified vide notification dated 17.7.2012 (Annexure P 1) by the State Government may also kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and fair play. iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to continue at her present place of posting and the respondents may also be directed to release the salary of the petitioner." 33. IN some petitions SMC teachers of Tribal/Difficult Areas are also seeking regularization of their services alongwith consequential service benefits. 34. SIMILARLY in one of the petitions (CWP No. 3162 of 2013 G, Shri Harish Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others), filed by a SMC teacher of Non Tribal/Non Difficult Area, which has been treated as the lead case of its type, the following reliefs have been claimed: "A. The respondents be directed to pay the salary of the petitioner equal to the salary of the teachers working on the similar posts as regular teachers. State of Himachal Pradesh and others), filed by a SMC teacher of Non Tribal/Non Difficult Area, which has been treated as the lead case of its type, the following reliefs have been claimed: "A. The respondents be directed to pay the salary of the petitioner equal to the salary of the teachers working on the similar posts as regular teachers. B. The respondents be further directed to frame a proper policy for giving training to the petitioner if required and to regularize him from the date of his joining as teacher. C. The respondents be further directed to release the balance of the salary to the petitioner after calculating the same equal to the regular teachers of the same post and to pay proper interest on the said balance salary as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. D. By issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus the respondents be directed not to dispense with the services of the petitioner and to let the petitioner continue as teachers on the post held by the petitioner in the school Respondent No. 4. Such other and further relief be also granted to the petitioner as to this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." Here, we are concerned with universal elementary education guaranteed under Article 21 A of the Constitution, which mandates as under: "[21 A. Right to education. The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.]" 35. IN order to give effect to the fundamental right of elementary education enshrined in the Constitution, the Parliament enacted The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short 'RTE Act'). In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 38 of RTE Act, the Government of Himachal Pradesh has framed 'the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Himachal Pradesh Rules, 2011' (in short 'the Rules') vide notification dated 5.3.2011. 36. HOWEVER, even before framing of the above Rules the State Government vide letter dated 6.3.2010, Annexure P I, addressed by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. 36. HOWEVER, even before framing of the above Rules the State Government vide letter dated 6.3.2010, Annexure P I, addressed by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh to the Director Elementary Education, had granted its approval for formation of SMCs under the RTE Act in the schools functioning under the education department as per guidelines contained in Annexure 'Ka' to the said letter with powers and responsibilities, interalia, under para 4.19, which reads as under: "4.19 If required, to select the part time/contract teachers as per the Government Policy but the SMC will not have the authority to appoint any part time/contract worker without the approval of the authorized officer." Thereafter the State Government vide notification dated 17th July, 2012, notified the "policy to engage a Teacher(s) through the School Management Committees purely on period basis in Elementary/Higher Education Departments of Himachal Pradesh in Tribal/Difficult Areas" as per procedure contained in Annexure A to the said notification. 37. WE have heard the learned Senior Counsel/Counsel and learned Advocate General for the appearing parties and gone through the records. There is no appearance on behalf of SMCs, except in CWP No. 4258 of 2013. 38. THE parties have relied upon the following case law: PETITIONERS Environmental and Consumer Protection Foundation Vs. Delhi 1. Administration and others, (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 211; Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust through President and another Vs. 2. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel and another, (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 310; Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs. Union of 3. India and another, (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1 (para 5); Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India and others, (2012) 6 Supreme 4. Court Cases 502; Union of India Vs. Dineshan K.K, (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 5. 586 (para 13); Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and 6. others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1 (paras 47 and 48); State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others, (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 118 (para 46); and Copy of judgment, dated 21st December, 2011, passed by Full 8. Bench of this court in Manju Bala Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and connected matters, CWP No. 1310 of 2009 and 5793 of 2010 (para 12). RESPONDENTS 1. Guru Charan Singh Vs. Piara Singh and others, (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 118 (para 46); and Copy of judgment, dated 21st December, 2011, passed by Full 8. Bench of this court in Manju Bala Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and connected matters, CWP No. 1310 of 2009 and 5793 of 2010 (para 12). RESPONDENTS 1. Guru Charan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 37 (paras 4 and 11); 2. Union of India and another Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal and another, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 422 (para 25); 3. State of Haryana and others Vs. Polu Ram and another, (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 452 (para 3); 4. Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1 (paras 47 and 48). 5. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. S.G. Kotturappa and another, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 409 (paras 16 and 20). 6. P.U. Joshi and others Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others, with Union of India and others vs. Basudeva Dora and others, (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 632 ( para 10). We have taken into consideration the principles of law laid down in the above authorities relied upon on behalf of the parties and borne the same in mind, which shall be referred to wherever necessary. 39. IT appears that the petitioners are continuing as SMC teachers on the strength of interim orders passed by this court. 40. THE first and foremost question that would arise for determination is as to whether SMC teachers working in Non Tribal/Non Difficult Areas can be discriminated against by the respondent State vis-a-vis teachers of Tribal/Difficult Areas in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it cannot be done in view of the mandate under Article 21 A of the Constitution read with the provisions of RTE Act. However, per contra, the learned Advocate General submits that SMC teachers of Tribal/Difficult Areas form a separate and distinct class with which the SMC teachers of Non Tribal/Non Difficult Areas cannot claim parity. Article 21 A guarantees fundamental right to all children of the age of six to fourteen years for free and compulsory education. To materialize this right RTE Act has been brought on the statute book, scheme whereof is as follows. 41. Article 21 A guarantees fundamental right to all children of the age of six to fourteen years for free and compulsory education. To materialize this right RTE Act has been brought on the statute book, scheme whereof is as follows. 41. AS per Section 2 (l) "prescribed" means prescribed by Rules made under RTE Act. The right to free and compulsory elementary education to every child of the age of six to fourteen years has been guaranteed under Section 3 of the Act. Chapter III of RTE Act enumerates duties of appropriate Government, local authority and parents. Section 6 casts the duty on appropriate Government and local authority to establish a school where there is no such school already established. Section 7 lays down mechanism for sharing financial and other responsibilities in the following manner: "7. Sharing of financial and other responsibilities. (1) The Central Government and the State Governments shall have concurrent responsibility for providing funds for carrying out the provisions of this Act. (2) The Central Government shall prepare the estimates of capital and recurring expenditure for the implementation of the provisions of the Act. (3) The Central Government shall provide to the State Governments, as grants in aid of revenues, such percentage of expenditure referred to in sub section (2) as it may determine, from time to time, in consultation with the State Governments. (4) The Central Government may make a request to the President to make a reference to the Finance Commission under sub clause (d) of clause (3) of article 280 to examine the need for additional resources to be provided to any State Government so that the said State Government may provide its share of funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (4), the State Government shall, taking into consideration the sums provided by the Central Government to a State Government under sub section (3), and its other resources, be responsible to provide funds for implementation of the provisions of the Act. (6) The Central Government shall (a) develop a framework of national curriculum with the help of academic authority specified under section 29; (b) develop and enforce standards for training of teachers; (c) provide technical support and resources to the State Government for promoting innovations, researches, planning and capacity building." 42. (6) The Central Government shall (a) develop a framework of national curriculum with the help of academic authority specified under section 29; (b) develop and enforce standards for training of teachers; (c) provide technical support and resources to the State Government for promoting innovations, researches, planning and capacity building." 42. DUTIES of appropriate Government and local authority have been enumerated under Sections 8 and 9 of RTE Act and the same are as under: "8. Duties of appropriate Government. The appropriate Government shall (a) provide free and compulsory elementary education to every child: Provided that where a child is admitted by his or her parents or guardian, as the case may be, in a school other than a school established, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government or a local authority, such child or his or her parents or guardian, as the case may be, shall not be entitled to make a claim for reimbursement of expenditure incurred on elementary education of the child in such other school. Explanation. The term "compulsory education" means obligation of the appropriate Government to (i) provide free elementary education to every child of the age of six to fourteen years; and (ii) ensure compulsory admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by every child of the age of six to fourteen years; (b) ensure availability of a neighbourhood school as specified in section 6; (c) ensure that the child belonging to weaker section and the child belonging to disadvantaged group are not discriminated against and prevented from pursuing and completing elementary education on any grounds; (d) provide infrastructure including school building, teaching staff and learning equipment; (e) provide special training facility specified in section 4; (f) ensure and monitor admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by every child; (g) ensure good quality elementary education conforming to the standards and norms specified in the Schedule; (h) ensure timely prescribing of curriculum and courses of study for elementary education; and (i) provide training facility for teachers. 9. Duties of local authority. 9. Duties of local authority. Every local authority shall (a) provide free and compulsory elementary education to every child: Provided that where a child is admitted by his or her parents or guardian, as the case may be, in a school other than a school established, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government or a local authority, such child or his or her parents or guardian, as the case may be, shall not be entitled to make a claim for reimbursement of expenditure incurred on elementary education of the child in such other school; (b) ensure availability of a neighbourhood school as specified in section 6; (c) ensure that the child belonging to weaker section and the child belonging to disadvantaged group are not discriminated against and prevented from pursuing and completing elementary education on any grounds; (d) maintain records of children up to the age of fourteen years residing within its jurisdiction, in such manner as may be prescribed; (e) ensure and monitor admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by every child residing within its jurisdiction; (f) provide infrastructure including school building, teaching staff and learning material; (g) provide special training facility specified in section 4; (h) ensure good quality elementary education conforming to the standards and norms specified in the Schedule; (i) ensure timely prescribing of curriculum and courses of study for elementary education; (j) provide training facility for teachers; (k) ensure admission of children of migrant families; (l) monitor functioning of schools within its jurisdiction; and (m) decide the academic calendar." Sub section (2) of Section 21 of RTE Act, which is extracted below, enumerates the functions to be performed by SMC: "(2) The School Management Committee shall perform the following functions, namely: (a) monitor the working of school; (b) prepare and recommend school development plan; (c) monitor the utilization of the grants received from the appropriate Government or local authority or any other source; and (d) perform such other functions as may be prescribed." 43. LET us be quite forthright at the very outset that in the existence of Article 21 A of the Constitution and RTE Act the State Government or for that matter any other Government in the country cannot discriminate between children within the age of six to fourteen years belonging to Tribal/Difficult Areas vis-a-vis such children of Non Tribal/Non Difficult Areas in the matter of providing free and compulsory education . If the State resorts to such recourse, it would be on the face of it ultra vires of the Constitution and against the very spirit of RTE Act and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. No such act can be countenanced on any premise, whatsoever. 44. ARTICLE 21 A of the Constitution was inserted by the Constitution (Eighty Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, with a view to grant the right of elementary education the status of a fundamental right against the backdrop that right to education was even earlier included under Article 41 of the Constitution as a directive principle of State policy. As a consequence thereof RTE Act was brought on the statute book. As already noticed, it was thereafter that the State Government granted its approval for formation of SMCs under RTE Act in the schools functioning under the education department as per guidelines contained in Annexure 'Ka' to the letter dated 6.3.2010, Annexure P 1, vesting those committees with power "to select the part time/contract teachers as per the Government policy" vide para 4.19. As per para 5.1 the financial resources of the SMC may be received from the following sources: "5.1 The financial resources of the School Management Committee may be received from the following sources: 5.1. 1 Out of the grants received from the government, the School . Grant, maintenance grant, Grant in aid, building grant or other budgetary allocation made by the government. 5.1. 2 Out of the grants as may be given to the SMC by the Non government organization, local bodies (urban or rural). 5.1. 3 Voluntary donation/deposits by the parents/community members. 5.1. 4 The fees of the utilization of school premises for fairs or other community objectives. 5.1.5 The bank account of the funds of the SMC will be opened and run under the joint signatures of the President and the Member Secretary. 5.1. 3 Voluntary donation/deposits by the parents/community members. 5.1. 4 The fees of the utilization of school premises for fairs or other community objectives. 5.1.5 The bank account of the funds of the SMC will be opened and run under the joint signatures of the President and the Member Secretary. In case of change of President after the first annual meeting, the signature of the new President shall be conveyed to the Bank. 5.1.6 The annual accounts of the expenditure incurred will be submitted by the Member Secretary for the perusal of the ou general house and will be made available for social audit or for audit to the agency authorized by the government for audit." There cannot be any denying of the fact that initially SMC teachers were engaged throughout the entire State in terms of para 4.19 of the guidelines contained in Annexure 'Ka' to the aforesaid letter dated 6.3.2010. The possibility that some of the petitioners engaged as SMC teachers for Tribal/Difficult Areas might have been initially H recruited in terms of these guidelines, cannot altogether be ruled out. Para 4.19 mandated that "SMC will not have the authority to appoint any part time/contract worker without the approval of the authorized officer". However, "authorized officer" has not been defined either in RTE Act or the Rules. In such circumstances, "respective Dy. Director of Education" referred to in para 1 of the procedure contained in Annexure A to the aforesaid letter dated 17.07.2012, whereby the policy for engagement of teachers through SMCs for Tribal/Difficult Areas was framed, cannot be said to be an authorized officer for the purposes of para 4.19 of the guidelines contained in Annexure 'Ka' to the aforesaid letter dated 6.3.2010, retrospectively, that is prior to 17.7.2012. In this regard, we may refer to the following paragraph of a Division Bench judgment dated 23.8.2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10113 of 2007, Smt. Renu Kumari Panday Vs. The State of Bihar and others and connected matters: "We may also note here that though the State Government framed a complete scheme for employment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra at Gram Panchayat level in furtherance of its goal of "Education for All", in none of the aforesaid Resolutions the Government had provided for an adjudicatory machinery. The State of Bihar and others and connected matters: "We may also note here that though the State Government framed a complete scheme for employment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra at Gram Panchayat level in furtherance of its goal of "Education for All", in none of the aforesaid Resolutions the Government had provided for an adjudicatory machinery. In other words, the State Government did not make any provision for redressal of grievance in respect of selection and employment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra or their reemployment after the expiry of the contractual period. On perusal of the records of the above writ petitions, we find that in absence of such machinery, the aggrieved persons approached the authority whom such persons considered to be the competent/the convenient authority. In our opinion, in absence of powers expressly conferred upon any such authority the reports or the orders made by such authority are of no consequence. No relief can be granted on the basis of the finding recorded by such authority. We may also point out that Elementary Teachers Appellate Authority constituted under Rule 18 of the Rules, as amended by Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2008 is empowered to entertain, hear and decide the appeals arising out of the employment of elementary teachers under the Rules. The said appellate authority has no jurisdiction to entertain, hear or decide the disputes relating to the employment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under the then prevalent Resolutions, Circulars, Orders, Instructions." 45. THE Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the above order of Hon'ble Patna High Court and has dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33303/2011, Renu Kumari Pandey Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. vide order dated 9.1.2012, though with liberty to the petitioner to file a review application before the High Court. 46. IT is another matter that the term "respective Dy. Director of education" can be treated to be the authority vested with the implementation of the aforesaid policy for recruitment of teachers for Tribal/Difficult Areas through SMCs on and with effect from issuance of the aforesaid notification dated 17.7.2012. 46. IT is another matter that the term "respective Dy. Director of education" can be treated to be the authority vested with the implementation of the aforesaid policy for recruitment of teachers for Tribal/Difficult Areas through SMCs on and with effect from issuance of the aforesaid notification dated 17.7.2012. This inference is further fortified from the introductory note to the procedure contained in Annexure A to the said notification dated 17.7.2012, titled as "Procedure for the appointment of a Teacher by the SMC to the educational Institutions of Tribal/Difficult Areas", which reads as under: "Procedure for the appointment of a Teacher by the SMC to the educational Institutions of Tribal/Difficult Areas. The School Management Committees of the educational Institutions located in the Tribal/Difficult areas have requested to fill up vacant posts of teachers in their schools. The Government is making all efforts to fill up all the vacant posts in the educational institutions in the State but even then some posts in the Tribal/Difficult areas remain vacant due to retirement, transfers, promotions etc. As such the studies of the students suffers badly. Keeping in view the betterment of the study of students in these area, it has been decided by the Government to permit the School Management Committees of educational institution situated in Tribal/Difficult areas as notified by the Department of Personnel (Annexure I), to provide the teachers against vacant post as per the clause 15 of the "Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Himachal Pradesh, Rules 2011" and para 4.19 of the guidelines issued by the Government for the constitution of School Management Committees in the educational institutions under the "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Himachal Pradesh Act, 2009" (emphasis supplied). The Government hereby frames the following procedure for the appointment of teachers through the SMCSs purely on period basis:" On a bare reading of the above introduction it is manifest that while framing the procedure for appointment of teachers through the SMCs purely on period basis for Tribal/Difficult Areas, para 4.19 of the guidelines (Annexure 'Ka') issued by the Government for the constitution of School Management Committees in the education institutions under RTE Act, was also taken into consideration, meaning thereby that prior to that there was no such detailed procedure for appointment of teachers through SMCs and as such para 4.19 was holding the field. 47. 47. TRUE it is that Annexure 'Ka' vide which SMCs have been constituted under RTE Act as per approval accorded by the State Government vide letter dated 6.3.2010 is not of statutory nature, but even despite that, we have no doubt in our minds that it is binding upon the respondent State. 48. IT shall be pertinent to notice Rule 15 of the Rules, which provides for salary and allowances and conditions of service of teachers for the purpose of Section 23 (3) of RTE Act, which reads as under: "15. Salary and allowances and conditions of service of teachers for the purpose of section 23(3). The salary and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of teachers of schools specified in sub clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2, shall be as may be specified by the State Government from time to time through its various Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the respective posts and other orders/instructions issued by the State Government. Provided that the State Government may through a scheme notified by it, allow the School Management Committee to engage teachers on part time or temporary basis and pay them at such rates as are specified in the instructions issued by the State Government." A bare perusal of the above Rule would go to show that even the interests of SMC teachers working in Non Tribal/Non Difficult Areas are protected thereunder inasmuch as that they are entitled for payment of "salary and allowances as may be specified by the State Government from time to time through its various Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the respective posts and other orders/instructions framed by the State Government" (emphasis supplied). In the alternative the proviso to this Rule lays down that "the State Government may through a scheme notified by it, allow the School Management Committee to engage teachers on part time or temporary basis and pay them at such rates as are specified in the instructions issued by the State Government" (emphasis supplied). In this view the matter, Annexure 'Ka' to the aforesaid letter dated 6.3.2010, pursuant to which SMC teachers were engaged throughout the entire State including, perhaps, some of the SMC teachers of Tribal/Difficult Areas, is held to be binding upon the State Government. 49. In this view the matter, Annexure 'Ka' to the aforesaid letter dated 6.3.2010, pursuant to which SMC teachers were engaged throughout the entire State including, perhaps, some of the SMC teachers of Tribal/Difficult Areas, is held to be binding upon the State Government. 49. IN view of the above, we conclude that since the Government decision granting approval to SMCs for engagement of part time/contract teachers in terms of Annexure 'Ka' to letter dated 6.3.2010 is not shown to have been abrogated and is still in force and the same governs the entire state, albeit the fact that a separate policy for SMC schools of Tribal/Difficult Areas has also been framed by the Sate Government vide notification dated 17.7.2012, as per Annexure A referred to hereinabove, there cannot be any discrimination between both sets of SMC teachers as far as the period 6.3.2010 to 17.7.2012 is concerned, when procedure for engagement of teachers in Tribal/Difficult Areas through SMCs was introduced vide Annexure A to the notification dated 17.7.2012. Even during this period the State Government cannot shirk its responsibility under Article 21 A of the Constitution read with Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of RTE Act to make provision for payment of remuneration to the part time/contract teachers engaged by the SMCs under para 4.19 of Annexure 'Ka' to the letter dated 6.3.2010 at par with their counterparts engaged by the State Government on contract/part time/period basis. It is because it was only for the reason that there was paucity of teachers in schools throughout the State, which necessitated engagement of such teachers, who were interviewed by the SMCs as per the prevailing criteria, as is apparent from Annexure P 3 to CWP No. 3162 of 2013. The State Government cannot be permitted to take a stand at this stage that such appointments were without the approval of the "Authorized Officer", as on the one hand no such officer is shown to have been appointed as already noticed and on the other no such material has been brought on record, which in any case can be available only with it and the petitioners cannot be expected to produce the same. 50. 50. AS far as the period after 17.7.2012 onwards is concerned, suffice it to say that as already observed the petitioners in both sets of cases are continuing in terms of interim orders passed by this Court and as such both sets of SMC teachers working in Tribal/Difficult Areas and Non Tribal/Non Difficult Areas are required to be treated equally in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Above all, the State exists in perpetuity and governance is continuing process, which requires fairness, impartiality, objectivity, transparency and consistency, interalia, amongst other facets of governance vis-a-vis executive/administrative functions. 51. IN the face of Article 21 A of the Constitution and the provisions of the RTE Act, particularly those referred to hereinabove, the State cannot set up financial constraints as a valid ground to deny equality before law and equality of opportunity in matters of public C employment guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The defence of classification set up by the State as a valid ground for discrimination between SMC teachers of Tribal/Difficult Areas and Non Tribal/Non Difficult Areas does not pass the following twin test: "(i) The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which must distinguish persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) Such differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute, legislation or provision." 52. FURTHERMORE, it is a matter of common knowledge that the so called public schools are mushrooming in every nook and corner of the State. Every parent, who is possessed of some means, is admitting his children in such schools even at the cost of hiring accommodation in the muffasil kasbas/towns where ordinarily mothers are residing with the children, so that they can get education in such schools. This tend is telling upon the overall standards of education in Government schools and particularly at primary and middle level, which are the institutions of imparting universal free and compulsory education to children between the age of six to fourteen years. It is also a matter of common knowledge that only the children belonging to poor and weaker sections of society, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs and other under privileged sections of society viz. It is also a matter of common knowledge that only the children belonging to poor and weaker sections of society, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs and other under privileged sections of society viz. migrant labourers, low paid employees working in Government/semi Government/private sectors and self employed persons, such as small vendors etc., send their children to Government schools. The State cannot allow the situation to deteriorate further by experimenting by way of recruiting teachers of various categories such as Volunteer, Vidya Upasak, Tenure, Contract, Ad hoc, Para, PAT, PTA and SMC appointees, Part Time/Period basis etc., as is the practice being adopted in the state for the last more than a quarter century. Fundamental Right of free and compulsory elementary education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years guaranteed under Article 21 A of the Constitution would be meaningless unless the schools imparting such education are equipped with minimum necessary infrastructure such as school buildings, teachers etc., besides provision for portable drinking water and toilet facilities. In this regard, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Environmental and Consumer Protection Foundation Vs. Delhi Administration and others, (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 211 can be cited in support of the observations made by us hereinabove. 53. THE claim for regularization has been given up by both sets of petitioners during the course of hearing and rightly so as neither they were recruited in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules nor they hold a civil post(s). To the contrary the nature of their engagement was purely part time/contractual/on period basis for a fixed term, which does not confer any right upon them to claim regularization. 54. IN support of this conclusion, reliance is placed on (1)Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1 (supra), (2) State of Haryana and others vs. Polu Ram and another, (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 452 (supra), (3) Guru Charan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 37, (4) Union of India and another vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal and another, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 422 and (5) P.U. Joshi and others vs. Ac countant General, Ahmedabad and others and connected matter, (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 632. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra), the contention on behalf of the petitioners that even if it is held that their appointment is by way of stop gap arrangement, they cannot be replaced by another stop gap arrangement, as has been held in Piara Singh's case (supra), does not hold good. 55. FOR the same reason as above, the petitioners are also not entitled for equal pay at par with regularly employed teachers, which factual and legal position has also been candidly admitted to be correct by them across the bar at the time of hearing. On the same analogy their prayer for framing policy for imparting training to them is not legally tenable. 56. THE principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K., (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 586 (supra), is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, as also for the detailed reasons enumerated hereinabove, as such the petitioners cannot derive any strength in support of their contention for "equal pay for equal work". Now, the question that remains to be determined is whether a mandamus can be issued against the respondents State not to dispense with the services of both sets of petitioners. Their prayer to this effect can also not be considered, what to say of being granted, keeping in view the nature of their employment and the reasons elaborated in detail hereinabove and is accordingly declined. 57. Their prayer to this effect can also not be considered, what to say of being granted, keeping in view the nature of their employment and the reasons elaborated in detail hereinabove and is accordingly declined. 57. HOWEVER, it is clarified that insofar as paras 9 and 10 of Annexure A to the notification dated 17th July, 2012, laying down the policy/procedure "to engage a Teacher(s) through the School Management Committees purely on period basis in Elementary/Higher Educations Departments of Himachal Pradesh in Tribal/Difficult Areas", which are extracted below, mean one and the same thing that tenure of a teacher appointed under this scheme would automatically come to an end in the situations stipulated under those paras and that such teacher shall not be allowed to continue after completion of academic session or after the joining of regular/contract teacher appointed by the Government, but does not mean that a SMC teacher, who has served under the said scheme for a term cannot compete for re employment alongwith other aspirants during the next academic session, in which eventuality the most meritorious candidate would be entitled for engagement in the new academic session(s), which would be in the overall interests of the institutions and the students: "9. The Head of the Institutions ensure that the services of the said SMC provided teachers will automatically be terminated as and when regular/contract teacher appointed /transferred by the Government joins against the said post or after completion of the academic session of the institution, whichever is earlier. 10. In the next academic session, a fresh selection process will be conducted. In no case, the SMC provided teacher earlier be allowed to be continue after completion of academic session nor after the joining of regular / contract teacher appointed by the Government." 58. THE prayer of both sets of petitioners for treating them at par with the teachers recruited by Parent Teacher Association (PTA appointees) does not fall within the domain of this court being a policy matter, which they may pursue with the concerned Government, if so advised, in accordance with law. THE prayer of both sets of petitioners for treating them at par with the teachers recruited by Parent Teacher Association (PTA appointees) does not fall within the domain of this court being a policy matter, which they may pursue with the concerned Government, if so advised, in accordance with law. In the result, the petitions succeed partly and are accordingly allowed in part in the following terms: (1) SMC teachers including those of Non Tribal/Non Difficult Areas would be entitled for remuneration with effect from their initial appointment till they continue to be in such employment strictly in terms of their employment on part time/contract/period basis and the respondent State is directed to pay the same to them as mandated under Article 21 A read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, RTE Act and the Rules; (2) Both sets of SMC teachers are entitled to compete for being appointed as such in the new academic session(s) alongwith other eligible candidates and any interpretation of paras 9 and 10 of Annexure A to the notification dated 17th July, 2012 to the contrary, would not come in their way. (3) Rest of the claims set up by the petitioners are declined. 59. THE petitions stand disposed of accordingly.