JUDGMENT 1. These 4 writ petitions are disposed of through this common order as the cause of action as well as the questions of fact and law involved are similar if not identical in all the cases. For the purpose of brevity and clarity, I shall refer to Writ Petition Nos.29561, 29716, 30254 and 30435 of 2013 as petition Nos.1 to 4 respectively. 2. As many as 12 persons filed the 1st writ petition out of whom petitioner No.11 is a male person. Rest of the persons are females. The 2nd writ petition was laid by 23 persons all of whom are females. The 3rd writ petition is by 16 persons; only petitioners 12 to 16 are women. The rest are male persons. In the last writ petition being the 4th writ petition, all the 12 petitioners are females. It became necessary to refer to the sex of the petitioners as it has some relevance in the case. The petitioners in the 1st writ petition seek for a Writ of mandamus to declare Notification dated 11-9-2013 issued by the respondents calling for applications to fill up the posts of Special Officers on contractual basis for a period of one year which posts are held by the petitioners on deputation on the terms of foreign service as illegal and violative of guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.59, School Education (SSA) Department, dated 22-8-2007 and to direct the respondents not to disturb the petitioners from their service as Special Officers of Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV, for short). Identical prayer is made in the 2nd writ petition. In the 3rd writ petition, the petitioners sought for a mandamus to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 therein to recruit Special Officers for KGBV Schools through Notification dated 12-9-2013 and 11-9-2013 as illegal and for a direction to continue the petitioners as Special Officers in KGBV Schools in Medak, Mahabubnagar and Kadapa Districts with all consequential benefits. In the last writ petition, a Writ of mandamus is sought to declare Notification dated 11-9-2013 as illegal. Thus, in all the cases, Notification dated 11-9-2013 is questioned whereas in the 3rd writ petition, Notification dated 12-9-2013 is also questioned. 3. More or less the facts are common. In the last writ petition, a Writ of mandamus is sought to declare Notification dated 11-9-2013 as illegal. Thus, in all the cases, Notification dated 11-9-2013 is questioned whereas in the 3rd writ petition, Notification dated 12-9-2013 is also questioned. 3. More or less the facts are common. Government of India introduced a scheme called KGBV in 2004 for setting up of schools with boarding facility for girl children primarily belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes Communities as well as Minorities in educationally backward areas. The institutes are meant for out-of-school girl children such as those who never enrolled themselves or dropouts of the school. As many as 743 KGBV Schools became fully operationalised in the State to educate children up to X Class. 4. The scheme is envisaged to provide education for Elementary and High Schools. The expenditure is to be shared at 75% by Union of India and 25% by Government of Andhra Pradesh. Schools were sanctioned in the Mandals where women literacy is less than national average. The schools were initially started in 2004 in 87 Mandals. Later, 743 Mandals were identified. 5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh decided to confer management of the schools upon Societies like Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society, Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society and Andhra Pradesh Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society. The respondents constituted a Society styled as Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyala Society. Proceedings were initiated to put the management of all the schools with the 4th respondent-Society. It would appear that KGBV Society was instituted in terms of Article 21A of the Constitution of India as well as the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, for short). The Government of Andhra Pradesh took a decision to entrust the management of KGBVs to the existing Government Residential Schools Society through orders in G.O.Ms.No.59, School Education (SSA) Department, dated 22-8-2007. The 3 Societies have already been stated. 6. G.O.Ms.No.59 contemplates the appointment of one of the existing regular employees of the Society on redeployment basis as Warden cum Teacher/Special Officer. Such Special Officer is to be in overall administration and finances of the institutions. Most of the petitioners who are Post Graduate Trained Teachers in Residential Schools of the Society is concerned were taken on deputation basis/foreign service. G.O.Ms.No.59 contemplates the appointment of one of the existing regular employees of the Society on redeployment basis as Warden cum Teacher/Special Officer. Such Special Officer is to be in overall administration and finances of the institutions. Most of the petitioners who are Post Graduate Trained Teachers in Residential Schools of the Society is concerned were taken on deputation basis/foreign service. Retired women Mandal Education Officers, Head Masters were also engaged on contractual basis as a staff gap arrangement till regular arrangements are to be made. According to para 5 of G.O.Ms.No.59, the respondents deputed the petitioners under foreign service. The petitioners in the 1st writ petition claim that they were made to believe that they would be continued till the scheme existed. Similar plea has been taken by the writ petitioners in all the remaining writ petitions. 7. While things stood thus, a Notification was issued calling for appointment of Special Officers in all the Institutions of Andhra Pradesh KGBV Society on contractual basis for a period of one year including the posts held by the petitioners. Contending that the petitioners are likely to be repatriated contrary to the guidelines on which they were deputed, the petitioners in the writ petitions sought for a mandamus. 8. However, in the 3rd writ petition, petitioners 1 to 12 are contract employees appointed as Special Officers. Petitioners 13 to 16 are deputed employees as in the case of the other writ petitions. All of them claim that the Notification to make appointments of contract employees leading to repatriation of the petitioners in the 1st, 2nd and 4th writ petitions and in the termination of the services of the petitioners 1 to 12 in the 3rd writ petition is questioned as against the guidelines and principles of natural justice. 9. The 3rd respondent laid a detailed counter. The Government of India sanctioned 743 KGBVs in all vide proceedings dated 24-11-2010. It was decided that the KGBVs should be managed by Rajiv Vidya Mission (Sarva Siksha Abhiyan) [RVM (SSA), for short]. Consequently, the District Collectors were requested through letter dated 01-01-2011 to operationalise KGBVs with immediate effect. Towards this end, Andhra Pradesh Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Society (AP KGBVS, for short) was formed and registered in October, 2011 under the Societies Act, 2001 with a view to run all the 743 KGBVs by a single Society. The Sociecy was constituted on 14-10-2011. Towards this end, Andhra Pradesh Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Society (AP KGBVS, for short) was formed and registered in October, 2011 under the Societies Act, 2001 with a view to run all the 743 KGBVs by a single Society. The Sociecy was constituted on 14-10-2011. A decision was taken to bring all the KGBVs under AP KGBVS from June, 2012. The same was rescheduled to 01-12-2012. 10. Till 2011, recruitment was in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.59. Each of the Societies appointed their own regular staff as Special Officers of KGBVs on deputation basis and they were paid from the funds of the respective Societies. After formation of AP KGBVS through G.O.Rt.No.758, recruitment was in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society. The Appointing Authority for Special Officers became the Vice Chairperson of the Society. It was made clear that the deputation of the staff as Special Officers was on Foreign Service (FS, for short) terms only for a year. The counter also referred to the financial implications. It was finally stated in the counter that the policy decision of the Government cannot be tinkered by the petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction of the Court. 11. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners in the 1st and the 2nd writ petitions, submitted that the KGBV Schools had been run by staff drafted from the regular schools and sent to the KGBV Schools right from the beginning and that KGBV Institutions became a big success on account of the hard work of the deputed staff of the regular schools. As already pointed out, the impugned Notifications dated 11-9-2013 and 12-9-2013 were issued calling for applications for Special Officers in these Schools to be appointed on contract basis for a period of one year initially. 12. The petitioners relied upon Revised Guidelines for the year 2012-13. Para 2(b) of the Revised Guidelines envisages that regular teachers working as Post Graduate Trained Teachers (PGTs, for short) in Residential Schools of the Societies concerned as well as other persons like Head Mistresses of Government/Zilla Parishad/ Municipal High Schools and School Assistants of those schools shall be taken on deputation or Foreign Service as Special Officers in the event regular staff are not available. Indeed, provision is made to recruit retired women Mandal Educational Officers and Head Masters also. 13. Indeed, provision is made to recruit retired women Mandal Educational Officers and Head Masters also. 13. The controversy relates to appointment of regular teachers working as PGTs to work on contract basis as Special Officers. The learned Senior Counsel drew my special attention to the facts that the Revised Guidelines did not speak about any duration of the period of deputation. He submitted that these Revised Guidelines have been in force right from the beginning inasmuch as they relate to the Special Officers. It is contended by the petitioners that the Notification now speaks about appointment of Special Officers on temporary basis and that it would not be in the interest of the furtherance of the scheme. 14. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the 1st and the 2nd writ petitions that the purpose of appointing regular PGTs, Head Mistresses etc., is to appoint experienced teachers as Special Officers with a view to achieve the object of educating girl children. It is urged that the appointment of inexperienced persons as Special Officers would not be in the interest of the very scheme. The impugned Notification prescribed the eligibility as female candidates with Post Graduate Degree with High 2nd Class and also a B.Ed. Degree with High 2nd Class. There is no experience criteria for appointment as Special Officers. The Notification further points out that Special Officers are to be recruited on contract basis for one year only. It is in this context that the learned Senior Counsel submitted that recruiting inexperienced candidates and for a temporary period is not healthy and is not desirable. 15. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) ( (2006) 4 SCC 1 ), the Supreme Court frowned the appointment of temporary employees and more so, substituting one set of temporary employees with another set of temporary employees. The observation of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh ( (1992) 4 SCC 118 ) that:- “Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee. He must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the Appointing Authority.” Has been referred to in Uma Devi (3) (1 supra). He must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the Appointing Authority.” Has been referred to in Uma Devi (3) (1 supra). The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that there is no reason why the existing Special Officers including the petitioners deserve to be replaced by temporary Special Officers and that it would not be in the interest of the scheme to recruit temporary Special Officers on yearly basis. 16. Admittedly, the very scheme is envisaged on the basis of Article 21A of the Constitution of India. Article 21A, which came into force in 2010 through 86th Constitutional Amendment reads:- “Thus, it has become a Fundamental Right of children between the age of 6 and 14 to receive compulsory education.” The RTE Act in fact is a step in tune with Article 21A of the Constitution of India. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the Constitutional Court can interfere with even a policy view of the Government if it offends Article 14 of the Constitution if it violates Article 21A and the RTE Act. 17. Article 41 envisages that State shall take effective measures for providing education. Indeed, Article 37 ordains that the directives in Part IV of the Constitution are not justiceable. Nevertheless, admittedly, the goals suggested in Part IV of the Constitution are fundamental in nature constituting the basic structure of the Constitution. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the attempt on the part of the respondents to fill up the posts of the Special Officers through direct recruitment on temporary basis would violate the provisions of Articles 41 and 21A of the Constitution of India and also offends Article 14 as fresh candidates are sought to be chosen in preference to the working Special Officers like the petitioners. 18. Sri M.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in the 4th writ petition, explained that the posts of Special Officers are akin to the post of Head Mistress. He also contended that deputation is mere euphemism for regular employment. He referred to the proceedings issued by the District Educational Officer, Warangal, dated 11-6-2013 ordering appointment of Special Officers by selection by choosing them from out of the School Assistants and submitted that the Special Officers chosen and working are efficient staff members. He also contended that deputation is mere euphemism for regular employment. He referred to the proceedings issued by the District Educational Officer, Warangal, dated 11-6-2013 ordering appointment of Special Officers by selection by choosing them from out of the School Assistants and submitted that the Special Officers chosen and working are efficient staff members. He also pointed out that the appointment of the petitioners in the 4th writ petition (W.P.No.30435 of 2013) was after due selection only and that removing them, even by repatriation is unjust, improper and deserves to be set aside. 19. Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel representing the petitioners in the 3rd writ petition (W.P.No.30254 of 2013), pointed out that the petitioners 1 to 12 are contract employees working as Special Officers and that the petitioners 13 to 16 are Special Officers on deputation just as the petitioners in the other cases. He submitted that the petitioners 1 to 12 therein were appointed on 11-9-2009 after due interview and selection. He pointed out that their appointment was indeed temporary till regular selections are made. He also placed reliance upon Piara Singh (2 supra) and contended that the selection of Special Officers through the impugned Notification to replace the petitioners 1 to 12 is unjust and is not permissible. 20. The learned Additional Advocate General did not agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel for various petitioners. He submitted primarily that the petitioners barring for the petitioners 1 to 12 in the 4th writ petition are employees on deputation and that they did not have a vested right to continue permanently. He also submitted that the Courts would not interdict recruitment process already commenced. He submitted that the policy decision of the Government is to appoint Special Officers on contract basis and that the petitioners could not question the same. Finally, he explained about the feasibility of implementation of the very scheme with the petitioners and other PGTs and the like on the ground that the same is economically not viable and that there would be a shortfall of about Rs.443.51 lakhs if the petitioners and similarly situated persons are continued as Special Officers. 21. I may first answer the financial implications of the scheme as brought out by the learned Additional Advocate General. The scheme is a central scheme. 21. I may first answer the financial implications of the scheme as brought out by the learned Additional Advocate General. The scheme is a central scheme. It is to be budgeted at 75% by the Central Government and 25% by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that the total amount available towards salaries in terms of the budget approved by the Government of India for the 743 KGBVs is Rs.12,224.64 lakhs and that the amount required to run for the staff of the KGBVs excluding the Special Officers in terms of the financial norms provided by the guidelines of 2013-14 is Rs.9,101.75 lakhs. He then included the salaries of 743 Special Officers taken on deputation at Rs.3,566.40 lakhs. In the process, the overall salary of each of the teachers was computed at Rs.40,000/-per month. The learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that the total expenditure for staff and Special Officers would be Rs.12,668.15 lakhs with a shortfall of Rs.443.51 lakhs. He submitted that the financial constraint is one of the reasons why there are proposals to recruit temporary candidates and pay a consolidated amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to meet the expenditure within the budget provided. 22. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the 1st and the 2nd writ petitions submitted that the budgetary figures spelt out by the learned Additional Advocate General are not correct and are fallacious. His claim is that about 350 PGTs alone have been working on deputation basis as Special Officers and not 743 as pointed out in the calculation by the learned Additional Advocate General. He further submitted that the salary of the PGTs ranges from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.45,000/-per month and the average at most would be about Rs.30,000/-per month. He then submitted that if the salaries of the 350 Special Officers at Rs.30,000/-per month and the balance of the Special Officers at Rs.15,000/- per month is worked out, the total expenditure would be within the budgetary allocations. He further pointed out that assuming that all the figures are correct as claimed by the learned Additional Advocate General, the shortfall is Rs.4.4351 Crores, which is a pittance for the Government of Andhra Pradesh, to meet the additional expenditure. He suggested that in the interest of girl children, the Government of Andhra Pradesh could allow the PGTs on deputation as Special Officers to continue. He suggested that in the interest of girl children, the Government of Andhra Pradesh could allow the PGTs on deputation as Special Officers to continue. The calculation as suggested by the learned Senior Counsel shows that there is very little extra commitment for the State Government in the event the present situation is continued. I cannot consider it to be a financial burden to the State Government. Further, mere financial burden to the State Government cannot be a ground to recruit Special Officers, which ultimately may defeat the very purpose of the scheme. I therefore reject the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the financial exigency requires the Government to take a decision against continuing regular PGTs on deputation. 23. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the petitioners in fact do not have any locus since they would not suffer in any manner in the event Special Officers are recruited through the Notification, since the Special Officers now working would return to their respective stations as regular PGTs. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the petitioners approached the Court not with any selfish interest but with philanthropic motive to see that the excellent work done by them is not spoiled overnight. It may be recalled that this is not a Public Interest Litigation. Unless the petitioners established that they would suffer in the event they are not granted the relief, the petitioners may fail in the writ petitions. However, I do not wish to go into this aspect at this stage. 24. As already pointed out, the petitioners are deputed employees. The learned Additional Advocate General referred to G.O.Ms.No.10, containing consolidated instructions under Fundamental Rule No.110 of the Fundamental Rules. G.O.Ms.No.10 envisages that the period of deputation can be for a period of 5 years at the outermost. He also submitted that there is no legal right to a deputed employee over the post to which he is deputed and contended that the impugned Notification did not violate the rights of any of the petitioners. 25. On 22-4-2013, the Commissioner and Director of School Education issued proceedings instructing the District Education Officer, Regional Joint Directors and Project Officers to repatriate the teachers working on deputation who have been drawing the salary at the school point. 25. On 22-4-2013, the Commissioner and Director of School Education issued proceedings instructing the District Education Officer, Regional Joint Directors and Project Officers to repatriate the teachers working on deputation who have been drawing the salary at the school point. The learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that consequent upon the proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, all the teachers including PGTs have been recalled from deputations and the deputations have been cancelled. He contended that the petitioners admitted that they are deputationists and that when their deputations stood cancelled through orders of repatriation, such petitioners are not entitled to challenge the Notification. 26. Sri M.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in the 4th writ petition, contended that the writ petitioners were taken on deputation with the specific understanding that they would be continued on deputation as Special Officers till the continuation of the scheme. There is no material to substantiate this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Added to it, the very request does not appear to be reasonable. The scheme is likely to continue for quite some time if not perpetually. The petitioners cannot claim that they be continued on deputation on the ground of legitimate expectancy when they failed to show that the petitioners were deputed with an understanding that they shall be continued on deputation till the scheme lasts. 27. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that admittedly all the petitioners barring for the petitioners 1 to 12 in the last writ petition hold permanent posts in the Education Department and that the repatriation does not cause any prejudice to them. As has already been pointed out, the forte of the claim of the petitioners is the success of the scheme in the hands of the petitioners and the need to continue them to monitor the schools as Special Officers for the continuous success of the scheme. By and large, the petitioners did not claim that their repatriation would affect their careers. Even the learned counsel for the petitioners in the 3rd writ petition merely contended that there was an understanding that the petitioners shall be continued as Special Officers as long as the scheme continues. Consequently, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners would not suffer in any manner if they are repatriated need not be considered extensively. 28. Consequently, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners would not suffer in any manner if they are repatriated need not be considered extensively. 28. The learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that originally there was no regular recruitment through any Notification and that there was no written examination. He contended that the respondents had to hold a written examination through a Notification in view of the bye-laws of the Society. He further submitted that earlier, there was no condition that only female candidates were to be appointed as Special Officers and that as KGBVs are for girl students only, Government took a policy decision of appointing women only as Special Officers. I consider that the policy of the Government in this context is quite sound. The girl children are taken as residential children also. In the present day context, it is highly desirable that the Warden staying with the children in the hostel is a lady rather than a male person. The policy of the Government in considering to appoint only females therefore cannot be doubted. 29. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that there is quite a keen competition as 13,000 applications were received for 743 posts and that competent candidates would be chosen from such a competition. The petitioners are not disputing that worthless candidates are being recruited as Special Officers. Their claim is that experience is given a goby in appointing temporary Special Officers, on contractual basis. In the light of such a contention, it is not necessary to consider whether the Government is taking steps to choose best possible candidates or not. 30. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Government policy of choosing female candidates and selecting candidates through Notification does not require to be interfered with. He contended that the scope of judicial review in the policy decisions of the Government is very limited and that as there are no extraordinary circumstances to interfere with the policy decision, it is not a fit case to interfere with the decision of the Government to make recruitment through the impugned Notification. Reliance was placed upon State of U.P. v. Johri Mal ( (2004) 4 SCC 714 ). Reliance was placed upon State of U.P. v. Johri Mal ( (2004) 4 SCC 714 ). The Supreme Court explained the limited scope of judicial review in the following terms:- “The limited scope of judicial review, succinctly put, is:- (i) Courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, do not sit in appeal over the decisions of administrative bodies. (ii) A petition for a judicial review would lie only on certain well-defined grounds. (iii) An order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself is perverse or illegal. (iv) A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the power of judicial review; the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on a court is limited to seeing that the Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and that its decisions do not occasion miscarriage of justice. (v) The courts cannot be called upon to undertake the government duties and functions. The court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. Social and economic belief of a judge should not be invoked as a substitute for the judgment of the legislative bodies.” It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that Courts shall not interfere with the policy decision of the State. There is no dispute that the policy decisions of the State should not ordinarily be interfered with by Courts. 31. In this context, Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners in the 1st and the 2nd writ petitions, submitted that the attempt of Government to fill up the posts of Special Officers through direct recruitment by way of temporary appointment for one year affects the very functioning of the schools under the scheme and that the attempt of the Government to fill up the posts under the scheme of temporary appointments was frowned by the Supreme Court in Piara Singh (2 supra). The learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, contended that Uma Devi(3) (1 supra) specifically overruled Piara Singh (2 supra). In para 26 in Uma Devi(3) (1 supra), the Supreme Court considered that para 50 of the judgment in Piara Singh (2 supra) was inconsistent with para 45 of the decision. The learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, contended that Uma Devi(3) (1 supra) specifically overruled Piara Singh (2 supra). In para 26 in Uma Devi(3) (1 supra), the Supreme Court considered that para 50 of the judgment in Piara Singh (2 supra) was inconsistent with para 45 of the decision. However, it does not appear that Uma Devi(3) (1 supra) overruled the observations of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh (2 supra) that an ad hoc temporary employee shall not be replaced by another ad hoc temporary employee. 32. At the same time, it may be noticed that the guidelines under Action 1.b.4 ordains the AP KGBV Society to appoint teachers on deputation basis as Special Officers until final recruitment is done, by way of interim arrangement. The Notification is on temporary basis. The General Instructions make it clear that the selection was on temporary basis and is liable to be terminated without notice. Thus, the very Notification appears to be in furtherance of minutes of the 2nd Executive Committee Meeting dated 07-8-2013 of the AP KGBV Society. The petitioners are continuing as Special Officers by way of Foreign Service barring for the petitioners 1 to 12 in the 3rd writ petition. Prima facie, it appears that the very writ petitions are premature in the sense selection process has not been completed and orders have not been issued repatriating the petitioners to the parent Department. However, it is not the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the selection process is temporary and that there is no ground of apprehension for the petitioners that they are likely to be repatriated. Both sides proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners are likely to be repatriated by way of cancellation of the Foreign Service. However, the very Notification is in tune with the minutes of the Executive Committee of the AP KGBV Society. I am afraid that the policy decision of the AP KGBV Society, which is an instrumentality of the State, cannot be interfered with. I do not consider that the circumstances urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the 1st and the 2nd writ petitions are exceptional circumstances for me to interfere with the policy decision of the AP KGBV Society. 33. I do not consider that the circumstances urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the 1st and the 2nd writ petitions are exceptional circumstances for me to interfere with the policy decision of the AP KGBV Society. 33. Again, I consider that it is zot as though the respondents are trying to send away the petitioners and manage the Institutions with temporary employees perpetually. Such a step indeed has been disapproved in Piara Singh (2 supra) but the respondents do not appear to be resorting to such procedure. I have already pointed out that the financial constraint espoused by the learned Additional Advocate General cannot be accepted to support the proposed action of the respondents. At the same time, the petitioners, who are employees on deputation, cannot claim any vested right in the positions held by them in various schools run by the AP KGBV Society. They cannot resist the Notification contending that there is no justification in ordering their repatriation. I am also not satisfied with the contention of the petitioners that temporary employees to be appointed as Special Officers may not run the schools skillfully and that such appointments may diminish the value of the schools run by the AP KGBV Society. 34. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the 1st and the 2nd writ petitions contended that Court is entitled to interfere with the policy decision of the State if it offends Article 14 or any other Fundamental Right. I am not able to conclude that the attempt on the part of the 4th respondent-AP KGBV Society to fill up the posts of Special Officers with temporary direct recruit candidates is violative of Article 14 or Article 21A of the Constitution of India to interfere with the policy decision of the Government. 35. The petitioners 1 to 12 in the 3rd writ petition also shall go out to make room to the employees under the Notification as they do not stand on a better position than the rest of the petitioners. However, the Notification was issued in the middle of the academic year. 35. The petitioners 1 to 12 in the 3rd writ petition also shall go out to make room to the employees under the Notification as they do not stand on a better position than the rest of the petitioners. However, the Notification was issued in the middle of the academic year. To safeguard the interest of the children as well as the interest of the State and at the same time noting the inconvenience that the petitioners would be put to if they are transferred in the middle of the academic year, it would be appropriate to direct the official respondents to continue the petitioners in their respective positions till the end of the academic year and to give effect to the Notifications thereafter only. 36. Consequently, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the official respondents to continue the petitioners as well as all other deputation/Foreign Service employees working as Special Officers till the end of the academic year with liberty to implement the impugned Notifications thereafter. It is also made clear that in the event any of the deputed/Foreign Service employees working as Special Officers seek repatriation prior to the end of the academic year through a representation in writing, the official respondents are free to consider such representation even before the end of the academic year. No costs.