JUDGMENT Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J. 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for all parties, this bunch of 76 (seventy-five) writ petitions, namely, (1) W.P.(C) No. 1468/2007, (2) W.P.(C) No. 5031/2008, (3) W.P.(C) No. 1123/2009, (4) W.P.(C) No. 1126/2009, (5) W.P.(C) No. 1400/2009, (6) W.P.(C) No. 1839/2009, (7) W.P.(C) No. 3180/2009, (8) W.P.(C) No. 1321/2010, (9) W.P.(C) No. 1638/2010, (10) W.P.(C) No. 2544/2010, (11) W.P.(C) No. 4093/2010, (12) W.P.(C) No. 3710/2010, (13) W.P.(C) No. 4822/2011, (14) W.P.(C) No. 1187/2012, (15) W.P.(C) No. 2942/2012, (16) W.P.(C) No. 3602/2012, (17) W.P.(C) No. 4320/2012, (18) W.P.(C) No. 5656/201, (19) W.P.(C) No. 2126/2013, (20) W.P.(C) No. 1401/2009, (21) W.P.(C) No. 2555/2008, (22) W.P.(C) No. 1121/2009, (23) W.P.(C) No. 1124/2009, (24) W.P.(C) No. 262/2009, (25) W.P.(C) No. 1481/2009, (26) W.P.(C) No. 2631/2009, (27) W.P.(C) No. 3820/2009, (28) W.P.(C) No. 1323/201, (29) W.P.(C) No. 1864/2010, (30) W.P.(C) No. 2548 of 2010, (31) W.P.(C) No. 4834/2010, (32) W.P.(C) No. 1386/2011, (33) W.P.(C) No. 6093/2011, (34) W.P.(C) No. 2185/2012, (35) W.P.(C) No. 2213/2012, (36) W.P.(C) No. 3841/2012, (37) W.P.(C) No. 4632/2012, (38) 5657/201, (39) W.P.(C) No. 635/2013, (40) W.P.(C) No. 5030/2008, (41) W.P.(C) No. 1122/2009, (42) W.P.(C) No. 1125/2009, (43) W.P.(C) No. 1399/2009, (44) W.P.(C) No. 1482/2009, (45) W.P.(C) No. 2634/2009, (46) W.P.(C) No. 5006/2009, (47) W.P.(C) No. 1646/2010, (48) W.P.(C) No. 1868/2010, (49) W.P.(C) No. 3226/2010, (50) W.P.(C) No. 6637/2010, (51) W.P.(C) No. 3141/2011, (52) W.P.(C) No. 432/2012, (53) W.P.(C) No. 2055/2012, (54) W.P.(C) No. 3274/2012, (55) W.P.(C) No. 4319/2012, (56) W.P.(C) No. 4757/2012, (57) W.P.(C) No. 5907/2012, (58) W.P.(C) No. 5006/2008, (59) W.P.(C) No. 5010/2008, (60) W.P.(C) No. 5014/2008, (61) W.P.(C) No. 5012/2008, (62) W.P.(C) No. 5015/2008, (63) W.P.(C) No. 5357/2008, (64) W.P.(C) No. 5004/2008, (65) W.P.(C) No. 2370/2009, (66) W.P.(C) No. 4563/2011, (67) 3461/2010 and (68) W.P.(C) No. 3159 of 2013, (69) W.P.(C) No. 769/2014, (70) W.P.(C) No. 777 of 2014, (71) W.P.(C) No. 6409/2013, (72) W.P.(C) No. 5638/2013, (73) W.P.(C) No. 6410/2013 and (74) W.P.(C) No. 6193/2013, (75) W.P.(C) No. 2183/2010, (76) W.P.(C) No. 6196/2013 and (77) W.P.(C) No. 6197/2013 involving a common question of fact and of law, having heard together, are now being disposed of by this common judgment. The reliefs claimed by the petitioners in all the writ petitions are substantially one and the same, and are as follows: a) issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith formulate the scheme and give effect to the assurance/commitments in respect of regularization of services of the members of the petitioner-association; and/or b) treat the members of the petitioner-association equally and release their salary/remuneration, both current and arrear, forthwith as has been made in respect of School Mothers under the Bodoland Territorial Council; and/or c) direct the respondents to give effect to the directions issued by this Court vide the order dated 7.3.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 703/04 forthwith within timeframe; and cause or causes that may be shown and on perusal of the records and upon hearing the parties be pleased to make he Rule absolute and/or pass such further or other order(s) as your Lordship may deem fit and proper. -AND- Pending disposal of this petition, be further be pleased to pass appropriate interim order directing the respondents to pay current salary and not to oust the petitioners from their service and/or pass such further or other order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. For simplification, I will first deal with W.P.(C) No. 1468 of 2007 and my decision thereon will govern the remaining cases. W.P.(C) No. 1468/2007 is filed by an association under the name and style of "Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Vidyalaya" (All Assam School Mothers' Association), which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 bearing Regd. No. RS/785 of 1980-81 and having its registered office at Gazpuria village, P.S. Mariani, Jorhat District, Assam. The petitioner-society has a total membership of 967 (nine hundred and sixty-seven) school mothers, all of whom are claiming similar relief in this writ petition. 2. Before proceeding further, the case of the petitioner-association, as pleaded in the writ petition, may be briefly adverted to. The members of the petitioner-association are working as School mothers in different L.P. and M.E. Schools all over Assam. Though their services have been utilized by the respondent authorities since the fifties, no initiative was ever taken by them to provide their basic needs and requirements. In order to ventilate their common grievances, this association was formed by them in the year 1980. Though their services have been utilized by the respondent authorities since the fifties, no initiative was ever taken by them to provide their basic needs and requirements. In order to ventilate their common grievances, this association was formed by them in the year 1980. Before the creation Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), the School Mothers working in that area also joined hand with the members of the petitioner-association, but they have now formed a separate association under the name and style of "Sodou B.T.C. School Shiksha Matri Kendriya Committee". The functions and duties of School Mothers are as follows: a) To keep the school premises clean and hygienic by regular sweeping, dusting, cleaning refuse left by students, etc. b) Looking after and keeping control over the children/students in order to maintain discipline before the commencement of classes. c) Providing first aid/medical attention in minor mishaps/accidents. d) Ensuring safety and security of the children after end of the classes until the guardians turn up for taking home their wards. e) In rural areas, school mothers are required to provide safe drinking water to little school going children and look after the premises including buildings, etc. f) Assist the teacher/Headmasters for smooth functioning of the school. g) Teaching and introducing sports/games/music/songs, etc. which are in fact the most essential part of the requirement for building a proper human being. h) School Mothers are also required to help the teachers in all activities, ranging from holding examination, maintaining discipline, taking over the charge of the children in absence of any teacher, engrossing the children in various activities during off periods, nursing in necessities, etc. Since 1999, School Mothers, in addition to their afore-mentioned duties, are also required to teach the students of Class 'Ka-class' (Nursery Level). 3. According to the petitioner-association, a typical example for their case is the case of Smt. Bakulibala Barah, who was appointed on 4.11.1958 as a School Mother of No. 146 Sakhorbara L.P. School by the Secretary School Board, Jorhat, which was the appointing authority at the relevant time. Before her appointment, she was directed to undergo a school mother training that was held at Raha Buniada Prasikhan (Training) Kendra vide the order dated 15.7.1958. Subsequently, the Block Elementary Education Officer issued the order dated 28.5.2001 informing her that she was to retire from service on superannuation on 31.5.2001 as per her service book. Before her appointment, she was directed to undergo a school mother training that was held at Raha Buniada Prasikhan (Training) Kendra vide the order dated 15.7.1958. Subsequently, the Block Elementary Education Officer issued the order dated 28.5.2001 informing her that she was to retire from service on superannuation on 31.5.2001 as per her service book. The Government of Assam vide the letter dated 12.12.1978 created about 506 posts of School Mother, and retention orders for these posts were also issued from time to time. The petitioner-association has been pursuing the case of its members since 1980-91 with the respondent authorities. According to the petitioner-association, different authorities such as the Managing Committees, Officers of Education Department appointed School Mothers on lump sum pay or honorary basis. Though altogether around 27,000 School Mothers are working in various schools, only 505 School Mothers were adjusted/appointed against a lump sum payment of Rs. 525/- per month and that too in a very irregular and illegal manner. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner-association that in the year 1992, when regularization issues of School Mothers were raised in the floor of the Assembly vide Question No. 152 on 17.3.1992, the then Minister of Education assured the House that "The matter is under examination. As per the available fund, a final settlement will be made pertaining to the matter." On the basis of this assurance, the Under Secretary, Education Department by his letter dated 19.1.1994 requested the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to submit a proposal to the Government for appointment/adjustment of School Mothers in L.P./M.E./M.V./MEM Schools. Again, on 29.6.1998, the Under Secretary requested the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to furnish a list of those 505 teachers who were absorbed/adjusted in various Schools. As nothing came out of this exercise, the petitioner-association again submitted a representation on 4.3.1999 to the Minister of Education, Assam stating the apathy shown to the School Mothers and urging him for consideration of their grievances. As nothing came out of this exercise, the petitioner-association again submitted a representation on 4.3.1999 to the Minister of Education, Assam stating the apathy shown to the School Mothers and urging him for consideration of their grievances. On the basis of this representation, a discussion was held by the Minister of Education with the officials of the Education Department and representatives of the petitioner-association wherein it was resolved to ascertain the number of School Mothers working all over the State, to fix their salary, qualifications, etc., to collect the names of working School Mothers and to examine Government approval, creation and appointment letters in respect of those 505 School Mothers appointed on lump sum remuneration. The Director of Elementary Education was asked to submit his report in that behalf within seven days. Another meeting was held by the officials of the Education Department under the Chairmanship of the Minister of Education wherein the petitioner-association was given an assurance that the Government was examining payment of remuneration @ Rs. 1,000/- per month and in the first place at least 10,000 School Mothers would be appointed. Three other meetings were held thereafter wherein also the Government assured the representatives of the petitioner-society that at least 500 School Mothers would be considered for appointment under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Sarba Shiksha Avijan ("SSA" for short). Thereafter, the Secretary, Education Department, Assam considering the necessity of having School Mothers vide the letter dated 30.3.2002 requested the Mission Director and S.P.D., D.P.E.P., Assam to examine and prepare a scheme to engage a Mother-cum-Teacher at a fixed remuneration of Rs. 500/- per month for the benefit of children of 3 to 5 years group in pre-class rooms of "Ka"-man (pre-nursery) level. 5. Contrary to the numerous of assurances given by the Government, the services of such large number of School Mothers were utilized as on date either on honorary basis or on payment of ` 500/- per month to about 500 School Mothers. No concrete action has been taken by the respondents to regularize the services of the members of the petitioner-association who have all along been rendering their services with dedication for several years. No concrete action has been taken by the respondents to regularize the services of the members of the petitioner-association who have all along been rendering their services with dedication for several years. Ultimately, the petitioner-association was constrained to approach this Court in W.P.(C) No. 703 of 2004 praying, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to formulate a scheme to appoint/regularize the services of the members of the petitioner-association. Having regard to the nature of the dispute raised in the writ petition, this Court on 9.3.2006 disposed of the same by directing the respondents to formulate a scheme for recruitment to the post of School Mothers as and when the necessity for those posts arose and to proceed with the selection in accordance with such scheme with a rider that no person should be appointed on pick and choose basis. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner-association that the other association i.e. Sodou B.T.C. School Siksha Matri Kendriya Committee, which used to be a part of the petitioner-association prior to the creation of BTC, filed W.P.(C) No. 2997 of 2006 before this Court, which disposed of the same on 23.6.2006 with the following directions: "By the judgment and order dated 26.03.2003 passed in W.P.(C) No. 132 of 2003 and other connected cases, this Court had directed release of salary to the petitioners in the writ petition under consideration, who were appointed as mother teachers in different schools within B.T.C. (erstwhile B.A.C.). A proposal for sanction/release of funds to the extent of Rs. 14,18,03,216/- (Rupees fourteen crores eighteen lakhs and three thousand two hundred sixteen) only was submitted to the Respondent No. 2 by the Secretary of the Bodoland Territorial Council on 28.11.2005. The said proposal having been cancelled by a communication issued on the next date, i.e. on 29.11.2005, the present writ petition has been filed. At the hearing, Mrs. 14,18,03,216/- (Rupees fourteen crores eighteen lakhs and three thousand two hundred sixteen) only was submitted to the Respondent No. 2 by the Secretary of the Bodoland Territorial Council on 28.11.2005. The said proposal having been cancelled by a communication issued on the next date, i.e. on 29.11.2005, the present writ petition has been filed. At the hearing, Mrs. M. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel BTC has placed before the Court a copy of a fresh proposal dated 23.3.2006 submitted by the Joint Secretary, BTC to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department for release of fluids to the extent of Rs.14,18,03,216 (Rupees fourteen crores eighteen lakhs and three thousand sixteen) only for payment of arrear salary to the mother teachers under the B.T.C. Area in accordance with the judgment and order dated 26.3.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 132 of 2003 and other concerned cases. In view of the fresh proposal submitted by the BTC authority on 23.3.2006, there is no surviving cause of action in this writ petition for the Court to adjudicate. Writ petition is accordingly closed by requiring the concerned authority in the State Government to take necessary action in the light of the proposal dated 23.03.2006 expeditiously and without any delay so that the concerned persons may receive their salary in accordance with the judgment and order dated 26.3.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 132 of 2003 and other connected cases. The proposal dated 23.3.2006 placed before the Court be kept on record." 7. On the basis of the aforesaid direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 132/2004 and W.P.(C) No. 2997/06, the respondent State duly released the fund to the BTC and the School Mothers under the BTC were accordingly paid their salary arrears. However, in the case of the members of the petitioner-association, despite repeated requests to that effect made by the petitioner-association and the direction of this Court dated 7.3.2006 in W.P.(C) No. 703/04, no steps have been taken by the respondent State till now for framing of scheme to regularize the services of members of the petitioner-association or to release their arrear salary. It is thus the case of the petitioner-association that the members of the petitioner-association have been subjected to hostile discrimination by treating equals as un-equals: such discrimination is violative of the fundamental rights of the members of the petitioner-association guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Both sets of employees were recruited under similar circumstances and are performing identical duties, but one batch is given the benefit of salary arrears and adjustment/appointment while the other batch i.e. the members of the petitioner-association are deprived similar benefits though they are similarly situated. This is how this writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner-association claiming the reliefs adumbrated in the beginning. 8. The writ petition is opposed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education (Elementary) Department on behalf of the Education (Elementary) Department by an affidavit-opposition. A separate affidavit-in-opposition was also filed by the SSA. The case of the State-respondents as seen from their affidavit-in-opposition dated 6.11.2009 is that the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Act, 1974 ["the Act of 1974"] for short] came into force on 5.9.1975, pursuant to which the liabilities of all the employees of the Elementary Schools maintained by the erstwhile Schools/Regional/State Boards of Elementary Educations were taken over by the State Government. Prior to this, appointment to teaching and other non-teaching staffs of Elementary Schools were made by the concerned Schools and Regional/State Boards under the Act and the Rules made thereunder which were then in force and which had ceased to operate with the coming into force of the Act of 1974. According to the answering respondent, the Act of 1974 deals with the provisions of Class-I to Class VII only, and Class I to IV have been designated as Lower Primary School whereas Class-V to VII are classified as Upper Primary/Middle School. As per the Act of 1974, the minimum age of a child for admission in Elementary School in Assam i.e. Class-I has been fixed at 5 (five) years. It is the case of the answering respondent that neither in the Act of 1974 or in the Rules framed thereunder nor in the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Service & Conduct Rules, 1981 is mentioned anything about School Mothers or the procedure for their recruitment or educational qualification, service conditions, etc. Neither the Act of 1974 nor the Rules made thereunder also deals with Pre-Primary Classes. 9. Neither the Act of 1974 nor the Rules made thereunder also deals with Pre-Primary Classes. 9. However, the erstwhile School/Regional Boards existing before the coming into force of the Act of 1974 used to appoint some School Mothers with a view to open Pre-Primary Schools under them as care-takers of little children. On enquiry, it was found that 506 School Mothers appointed by the said Boards were working in various primary schools in the State at the time of provincialization in September, 1975. As all the liabilities of such Boards were taken over by the Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1974, the Government in the Education Department by the order dated 26.9.1978 created 506 posts for School Mothers on a fixed pay of Rs. 190/- per month for the period up to 28.02.1979 w.e.f. 5.9.1975, which was subsequently revised to Rs. 1,050/- per month in terms of Revision of Pay Rules, 1998. The service and status of these 506 School Mothers were also classified as Grade-IV employees, and their retirement age was fixed at 60 years. These posts are liable to be abolished on the retirement of those incumbents on superannuation at the age of 60 years. Besides, these 506 posts, no new posts of School Mothers have been created by the Government till date. By the year 2000, the number of School Mothers was further reduced to 438 School Mothers and on further verification, there are still about 179 such School Mothers, who were appointed prior to 5.9.1975. These 438 School Mothers are not related to the members of the petitioner-association. The retention order of these posts were issued from time to time after due verification. After the coming into force of the Act of 1974, the Managing Committee of the provincialized elementary schools have no power/authority to appoint any person of their own either on honorary basis or in any other manner no new posts of School Mother are also created by the Government as such posts are not required after the coming into force of the Act of 1974, which does not envisage any Pre-Primary Class. Any appointments made in contravention of the Act of 1974 have no sanctity in law. The State Government never received any fund from the Central Government for any scheme for payment of salary to the School Mothers of Assam. Any appointments made in contravention of the Act of 1974 have no sanctity in law. The State Government never received any fund from the Central Government for any scheme for payment of salary to the School Mothers of Assam. No appointment can be made in violation of a Statute, Rules and Regulations, and illegal appointments cannot be regularised either. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot direct the authority to formulate a scheme and/or policy to regularise the service of any person appointed in violation of the statutory provisions as regularization cannot be a mode of appointment as such attempt to induct a person appoint in violation of law and without following the procedure would be a backdoor appointment. This Court cannot also compel the State to pay salaries to such illegal appointees from the State exchequer. These are the sum and substance of the stance taken by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition. 10. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner-association on 1.7.2008 wherein it is averred that like other Central Government sponsored schemes, a Central Government Scheme has been in force since the fifties to provide financial benefits to School Mothers. For instance, School Mothers in the State of West Bengal and some other States are recipients of such financial benefits as on date. Even after the coming into force of the Act of 1974, the respondent authorities are still appointing School Mothers in the subsequent years and adequate provisions are being made for their payment. According to the petitioner-association, among the 438 School Mothers retained by them, the persons in Serial No. 41, 44 & 44 of Nagaon District, Serial No. 57 of Jorhat district, Serial No. 144 of Bajali Sub-Division, Serial No. 154 of Tezpur Sub-Sub-Division, Serial Nos. 186 and 187 of Dibrugarh, Serial No. 219 of Hailakandi. Serial No. 233 of Udalgiri, Serial No. 327, 328 and 329 of Sibsagar and Serial No. 425 and 426 of Guwahati were appointed subsequent to the coming into force of the Act of 1974. The enhancement of remuneration of the School Mothers were also considered and recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission. Serial No. 233 of Udalgiri, Serial No. 327, 328 and 329 of Sibsagar and Serial No. 425 and 426 of Guwahati were appointed subsequent to the coming into force of the Act of 1974. The enhancement of remuneration of the School Mothers were also considered and recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission. According to the petitioner-association, subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Act, 1974 provides that all teachers of Elementary and Pre-Primary Schools maintained by the Regional Board of Elementary Education shall be deemed to be the employees of the State Government, even though there is no specific mention of School Mothers. Even after the expiry of the Plan period, it becomes the responsibility of the State Government to continue with the scheme of the Central Government with its own resources. The Scheme providing remuneration to School Mothers was accepted by various States including Assam and West Bengal, etc. with the financial support from the Central Government during the Plan period. While other States have been continuing the Scheme with their own resources even after the expiry of the plan period, the Government of Assam has failed to fulfill its corresponding obligation of making adequate provisions for its School Mothers even though they have been utilizing their services for a long period. The series of correspondences exchanged between the officials of the Directorate of Elementary Education and the Secretariat from 1997 to 2007 would go to show that the scheme is still in vogue and the services of the School Mothers are being utilized by the respondent authorities without considering their cases for regularization/absorption. 11. Subsequently, the petitioner-association filed their additional affidavit dated 9.6.2010 bringing on record certain developments which took place after the order dated 16.9.2008 passed by this Court. According to the petitioner-association, the 5th Pay Commission constituted by the State Government meticulously examined the matter and recommended for enhancement of the salary of School Mothers, and the same was approved by the State Government whereby the pay of School Mothers was revised from Rs. 525/- to Rs. 1050/- and, as such, there can be no denial of engagement of School Mothers. 12. 525/- to Rs. 1050/- and, as such, there can be no denial of engagement of School Mothers. 12. Before proceeding further, I may reproduce below the order dated 16.9.2008 passed by this Court in this case and W.P.(C) No. 2555 of 2008 as this is likely to have a bearing on the outcome of this writ petition: "16.9.2008 The petitioner-associations claim to represent a large number of mother teachers who, it is stated, have been engaged for long in the provincialized L.P. schools in different districts of the State of Assam. In W.P.(C) No. 2555 of 2008 a list of such mother teachers who have been engaged and are stated to be working have been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The relief sought in the writ petition is for a direction for payment of remuneration to the mother teachers for the service rendered by them. It is stated that such mother teachers are employed in the schools under the BTC and such engagement is also contemplated under different Central Schemes under which funds are available. The respondent state of Assam in the Education Department has filed an affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 1468/2007. The stand taken in the said affidavit as also the submissions advanced by Shri M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department are to the effect that the provincialized LP schools in the State of Assam impart education to students who have crossed five years of age and the classes start from Class-1 onwards. There is no provision for pre-primary education in the provincialized L.P. Schools requiring appointment of mother teachers. It is the further case of the respondent state that mother teachers who were working in the LP Schools prior to the provincialization have been regularized against the regular Grade-IV posts which are personnel to them. As there is no post of mother teachers in the provincialized L.P. Schools after coming into force of the 1977 Provincialization Act and there is also no requirement of mother teachers, no appointment of mother teachers have been made in any provincialized L.P. schools of the State. Notwithstanding the above, Sri A.M. Buzarbaruah and Sri D.K. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, have been emphatic in their submissions that the persons represented by the petitioners Association in both the writ petitions have been working for long as mother teachers. Notwithstanding the above, Sri A.M. Buzarbaruah and Sri D.K. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, have been emphatic in their submissions that the persons represented by the petitioners Association in both the writ petitions have been working for long as mother teachers. In this Court the Court deems it appropriate to take notice of the fact that in the provincialized L.P. Schools under the BTC, mother teachers have been disengaged in the year 2004 in view of the Provincialization Act as noted above. However, remuneration at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month for the period of service rendered have been decided to be paid to such mother teachers and the amount involved has also been sanctioned by the Finance Department. The above facts have been taken note of by the Court on the basis of the submissions made by Sri K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, B.T.C. In the aforesaid circumstances, before any final is rendered by the court in the present proceedings the respondent State in the Education Department will be required to inform the Court as to whether the claim of the petitioner-Associations that its members have been engaged in provincialized L.P. Schools and have been rendering service in those schools is factually correct. Once the aforesaid facts are placed before the Court, further orders, as may be considered appropriate, will be passed by the Court. To enable he aforesaid exercise to be completed, which may be a time consuming one, both the cases are adjourned for two months and shall be listed again on 20th of November 2008." 13. On 27.2.2013, the respondent No. 1 filed an additional affidavit informing this Court that the respondent authorities in compliance with the aforesaid order constituted a Committee comprising of the Joint Secretary Education (Elementary) Department as the Chairman and three other officials as the Members to look into the grievance of the members of the petitioner associations who were engaged by the School Managing Committees. It would appear the Committee submitted their report to the Government on 9.2.2011, a copy whereof is annexed to the affidavit at Annexure-1. The Committee took the view that there are about 2508 number of School Mothers as per the list submitted by the All Assam School Mothers Association and many of them are working for more than 20 years. It would appear the Committee submitted their report to the Government on 9.2.2011, a copy whereof is annexed to the affidavit at Annexure-1. The Committee took the view that there are about 2508 number of School Mothers as per the list submitted by the All Assam School Mothers Association and many of them are working for more than 20 years. The remuneration that they were receiving was a meagre amount. Moreover, they have become overage and are no longer eligible to apply for any Government job. The Committee, therefore, recommended that their services might be regularized on humanitarian consideration and in the interest of justice. The view taken by the Committee and their recommendations are apparently not accepted by the Government. 14. In rejecting of the findings and recommendations of the Committee, the respondent No. 1 took the view that such findings and recommendations are based on humanitarian consideration in order to improve their pathetic conditions and on basis of the list of 2508 school mothers received from the President of All Assam School Mothers' Association. Moreover, no representation of the Finance Department, which is most essential department in taking any decision regarding appointment, regularization and other decisions involving financial implications. The respondent No. 1 complained that the Committee, instead of going into legal issues arising out of illegal appointments by School Managing Committees due to the absence of existing posts, chose to make the said recommendations based on humanitarian grounds. For this reason, the Department decided to tentatively reject the said recommendation of the Committee. As there are about 27,000 mother teachers appointed by the Managing Committees of various schools and they are seeking regularization and salary from the State Government, the Education Department deemed it fit to seek the view of the Finance Department. It is also pointed out by the respondent No. 1 that prior to the constitution of the Committee, the Finance Department had already expressed the view that there is no provision for regularization of the service of the School Mothers engaged by the School Managing Committee on honorary basis in the provincialized L.P./U.P. Schools. 15. What is obvious from the above additional affidavit of the respondent No. 1 is that the respondent authorities do not think of regularizing the service of the members of the petitioner-associations or pay their salary, current as well as past. 15. What is obvious from the above additional affidavit of the respondent No. 1 is that the respondent authorities do not think of regularizing the service of the members of the petitioner-associations or pay their salary, current as well as past. The question to be considered is whether members of the petitioner-associations are entitled to regularization of their service and whether they are entitled to current as well as past salary. In my opinion, the answer to this will ultimately depends on whether the members of the petitioner-association were qualified for the post of School Mother and were appointed against sanctioned posts. In other words, whether their appointments as School Mother can be said to be irregularly appointed or illegally appointed? And whether they have been actually working in those posts? Unfolding his case, Mr. P.K. Goswamy, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-association submits that the members of the petitioner-association have been appointed as School Mothers in their respective schools and have been working for long in that capacity and are, therefore, entitled to regularization of their services and salary, current as well as past. He further submits that the verification report of the said Committee brought to light that the claims of these teachers are genuine thereby dispelling any doubt that they were never appointed to these posts or never worked in that capacity. The learned senior counsel maintains that the duties and obligations discharged by the members of the petitioner-association are outlined in Article 45 and 21-A of the Constitution of India as well as Section 11 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. So understood, submits the learned senior counsel, the action of the respondents in not releasing their remuneration and in not framing a scheme for regularizing their services pursuant to the minutes of discussions held and notified from time to time as well as the direction from this Court is arbitrary, illegal and capricious: this infringes the fundamental right to equality guaranteed to them under Article 16 of the Constitution., Releasing the salary of the School Mothers of those schools under BTC and denying the same to the members of the petitioner-association when they belong to the same class amounts to invidious discrimination without any rational basis and is, therefore, against the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. The further submission of the learned senior counsel is that denial of pay to the members of the petitioner-association amounts to exploitation of labour, and non-payment of salary, on the admitted facts of this case, amounts to forced labour and is contrary to Article 23 of the Constitution of India. To fortify his contentions, the learned senior counsel relies on the following decisions: (i) Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department vs. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 122 ; (ii) Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees Association vs. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 ; (iii) M. Ibohanbi Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 2 GLR 324; (iv) Olga Tellis & Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 and (v) Central Indian Water Transport Corporation vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156 . 16. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner-association, also draws my attention to the definition of the term "Employees" in Section 2(xv) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Service and Conduct Rules, 1981 ("the Rules" for short), submits that the definition of employees therein includes School Mothers thereby contradicting the stance taken by the respondent authorities that the Rules does not envisage the post of School Mothers. If the rule-making authority had intended that School Mothers should not be considered to be employees under the Act, argues the learned senior counsel, the legislature would have left out School Mothers from the purview of the term "employees" and would not have taken the trouble of defining the term "employees" in broad terms so as include the post of School Mothers. According to the learned senior counsel, since 1999, some even from the mid-fifties, these School Mothers have been rendering their services by teaching the students of Nursery Class (which in the local vernacular language is known as "Ka class"), and the Ka class or the Nursery class fall within the preparatory level and that level has been clearly envisaged by the Act of 1974 read with the 1981 Conduct Rules. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the lower Primary level, namely, the Ka class has been taken over by the Anganwadi Centre cannot be taken into consideration when such averment was never made in the affidavit filed by the State-respondents. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the lower Primary level, namely, the Ka class has been taken over by the Anganwadi Centre cannot be taken into consideration when such averment was never made in the affidavit filed by the State-respondents. The learned senior counsel clarifies that the President of petitioner-association never submitted a list of only 2508 School Mothers before the Committee nor were they called upon to do so and a clarification to this effect was made in their rejoinder filed in March, 2013 that altogether 4600 School Mothers have so far approached this Court by way of writ petition filed on behalf of Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers Association). Lastly, he submits that as the factual position pleaded by the petitioner-association has been admitted by the Report of Committee and these School Mothers have been serving and yet not yet paid their remuneration, which the State-respondents are well aware of, this Court has ample power under Article 226 of the Constitution to mould the relief to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of the case. The senior counsel heavily relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Dwarka Nath vs. ITO, AIR 1966 SC 81 to support his contention in this behalf. 17. Unfolding his submissions, Mr. DK Saikia, the learned Additional Advocate General, argues that under the Act of 1974, which came into force on 5.9.1975, the minimum age of child for admission in Elementary School in Class 1 has been fixed at 5 years. Class I to IV has been prescribed as Lower Primary and Class V to VII had been designated as Upper Primary, and the Act of 1974 covering elementary schools in Assam does not cover Pre-Primary School Education and has no provision for employing School Mothers. In other words, when there is no Pre-Primary stage in the provincialized Primary and Middle Schools as the minimum age in the entry level standard i.e. Class I has been fixed at five years, there is no requirement of School Mothers. No other post of School Mother has been created or any appointment for School Mother made except for the said 506 School Mothers which existed at the time of provincialization in 1975, and these teachers also belong to a vanishing cadre as those posts are supernumery and personnel to those appointees. No other post of School Mother has been created or any appointment for School Mother made except for the said 506 School Mothers which existed at the time of provincialization in 1975, and these teachers also belong to a vanishing cadre as those posts are supernumery and personnel to those appointees. He further submits that the members of the petitioner-association have never been appointed by the State-respondents as there are no posts of School Mothers except the said 506 posts: the petitioner-association never submitted any appointment order of its members or any documents relating to advertisement of the posts. If they happen to be appointed by the various School Managing Committees, such Committees have no authority to make such appointment after their schools are provincialized. Such appointments/engagements cannot be considered legal and valid appointments for the simple reasons that (a) there are no valid sanctioned posts for the same; (b) no advertisements were made before commencing the recruitment process; (c) no recruitment process consistent with Articles14 and 16 of the Constitution was ever held before their appointments. As the members of the petitioner-association, maintains the learned AAG, are not legally appointed, the State cannot be burdened with the liability for payment of their salary/remuneration to these School Mothers. The several correspondences exchanged between the various authorities of the Government do not create any enforceable right upon the members of the petitioner-association. The order dated 26.3.2004 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 132 of 2003 cannot be pressed into service by the petitioner-association to seek the same reliefs inasmuch as granting of such relief was conditional upon those petitioners being legally appointed and their continuing in services. The payment of salary to those petitioners was subject to their being payable. If the services of those petitioners were illegally regularized and their salary, current and past, was also illegally paid, such illegal action of the BTC cannot be used by the petitioner-association to claim similar relief. The learned AAG also points out that the report submitted by the Committee in terms of the order dated 16.9.2008 has been rejected by the Government and cannot assist the petitioner-association in claiming the relief sought. These are the main contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General. The learned AAG also points out that the report submitted by the Committee in terms of the order dated 16.9.2008 has been rejected by the Government and cannot assist the petitioner-association in claiming the relief sought. These are the main contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General. The following decisions are relied on by him to support his various submissions: State of Manipur vs. Y. Token Singh, (2007) 5 SCC 65 ; State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65 ; Government of A.P. vs. K. Brhamachandra & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 241; Sudhendu Mohan Talukdar & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2006 (2) GLT 216; Ranjana Begum Laskar & Anr. vs. State of Assam, 2008 (4) GLT 279; Jahangir Alom & Ors. vs. State of Assam, 2003 (3) GLT 544; Surinder Prasad Timari vs. U.P. Rajyakrish Utpadan Mandi Parisad & Ors., (2006) 7 SCC 684 ; State of Orissa vs. Mamta Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 ; Chandigarh Administration & Anr. vs. Jagjit Singh & Anr., (1995) 1 SCC 745 and Union of India vs. Kartik Chandra Mondal, (2010) 2 SCC 422 . 18. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties including the additional affidavits filed by them. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced with passion by both the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties. In my opinion, any discussion on regularization of service must always start with reference to the momentous decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Secy., State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (III), (2006) 4 SCC 7, which still holds the field on this aspect of the matter. This is what it said: "43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the employment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or daily basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly a temporary employee cannot claim to be made permanent on the expiry of the term of his appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the period of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the Court to prevent regular appointment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do any acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was mad regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have describe as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the Court may not be justified in issuing interims directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, I may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State of or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates." In para. 19 of the same judgment, the Apex Court emphasises the need for circumspection by Court in considering a prayer for regularization in the following manner: "19. One aspect arises. Obviously, the State is also controlled by economic considerations and financial implications of any public employment. The viability of the department or the instrumentality of the project is also of equal concern for the state. The State works out the scheme taking into consideration the financial implications and the economic aspects. Can a court impose on the State a financial burden of this nature by insisting on regularization or permanence in employment, when those employed temporarily are not needed permanently or regularly? As an example, we can envisage a direction to give permanent employment to all those who are being temporarily or casually employed in a public section undertaking. The burden may become so heavy by such a direction that the undertaking itself may collapse under is own weight. It is not as if this has not happened. So, the court ought not to impose a financial burden on the State by such directions, as such directions may turn counter-productive." 19. Having understood the true legal position enunciated by the Apex Court on the power of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing directions for regularization, the first point for consideration is whether the members of the petitioner-association were appointed/engaged as School Mothers of Lower Primary Schools. Though a number of documents and correspondences are produced by the petitioner-association from time to time by way of additional affidavits, not a single order of the engagement of the members of the petitioner-association has been produced by the petitioner-association to show that any of them has been appointed/engaged even as a temporary/ad hoc/casual School Mothers. The list of School Mothers compiled by them, to my mind, is a poor substitute for appointment/engagement orders. This is, to say the least, bizarre. The members of the petitioner-association claim that they were initially appointed/engaged by the school authorities as School Mothers in different L.P. Schools. The list of School Mothers compiled by them, to my mind, is a poor substitute for appointment/engagement orders. This is, to say the least, bizarre. The members of the petitioner-association claim that they were initially appointed/engaged by the school authorities as School Mothers in different L.P. Schools. The burden of proof that they were indeed appointed/engaged as School Mothers of Lower Primary Schools prior to or after provincialization of their schools is undoubtedly upon them. In other words, if they desire this Court of law to give a verdict as to their legal right dependent on the existence of facts which they assert, they must prove that those facts exist. What are those facts in this case? Those facts are that they are School Mothers of L.P. Schools. But no shred of evidence is produced by them to substantiate their case. 20. The only evidence relied upon by the petitioner-association to prove that they were appointed/engaged by respondent authorities as School Mothers is the verification report of Committee on School Mothers dated Nil constituted on the direction of this Court by the order dated 16.9.2008. As already noticed, the report has been rejected by the Government. The report may nevertheless be adverted to in the interest of justice. The report recommended that the services of the School Mothers be regularized on humanitarian grounds and "in the interest of natural justice", which would go a long way in improving the pathetic condition. It may be recapitulated that this Court had specifically directed the respondent authorities to inform it as to whether the claim of the petitioner-association that its members have been engaged in provincialized LP schools and have been rendering service in those schools is factually correct. Had the report been accepted by the Government, there should be no difficulty in holding that the members of the petitioner-association have been engaged as School Mothers and have been rendering services in those schools. However, in the face of rejection of such findings, I proceed to examine the report as to whether the findings of the Committee are based on acceptable evidence. Unfortunately, the findings of the Committee are not worthy of acceptance for more than one reason. In the first place, no documentary or oral evidence was apparently produced by the petitioner-association to substantiate their claim that the members of the association were ever engaged by the school authorities as School Mothers. Unfortunately, the findings of the Committee are not worthy of acceptance for more than one reason. In the first place, no documentary or oral evidence was apparently produced by the petitioner-association to substantiate their claim that the members of the association were ever engaged by the school authorities as School Mothers. On the contrary, their findings are based on the list of 2508 school mothers submitted by the petitioner-association. The findings are conspicuous by the absence of the dates on which the members of the petitioner-association were appointed/engaged, by whom they were appointed/engaged and the respective schools in which they were appointed/engaged. Even a cursory reading of the report suggests that the report is based on conjecture and surmise and without any shred of evidence. No wonder, the report was rejected by the respondent authorities. To compound the problem of the members of the petitioner-association, they are not even able to establish as to whether they were engaged by the erstwhile Managing Committee of their schools prior to provincialization thereof or by the respondent authorities after provincialization of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the schools. No advertisement was produced by them for their recruitment processes. Nor is there any evidence produced by them to show that they are holding sanctioned posts. This is not a case of irregular appointment but an illegal appointment The well-settled principles relating to relating to regularization and parity in pay are restated by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal, (2001) 2 SCC 429, which are in the following terms: (i) The High Court, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with rules in an open competitive process, against vacant sanctioned posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, appointment contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, appointment contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized. (ii) Mere continuation of a service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be "litigious employment". (iii) Even temporary, ad hoc or daily wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is no working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularization in the absence of a legal right. (iv) Even where a scheme formulated for regularization with a cut off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. (v) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. (vi) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against he State must arise under a contract or under a statute. [See State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L & S) 753, M. Raja vs. CEERI Educational Society (2006) 12 SCC 636 : (2007) 2 SCC (L & S) 334, S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L & S) 897, Kurukshetra Central Coop. [See State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L & S) 753, M. Raja vs. CEERI Educational Society (2006) 12 SCC 636 : (2007) 2 SCC (L & S) 334, S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L & S) 897, Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. Mehar Chand (2007) 15 SCC 680 : (2010) 1 SCC (L & S) 742 and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 943.] 21. Considering the fact that the members of the petitioner-association are claiming that they have been rendering service for more than twenty years without the protection of interim orders of courts or tribunals, the next question for determination is whether this Court can issue a direction to the respondent authorities to take steps for regularizing the services of the members of the petitioner-association as a one-time measure. Assuming their claim to be true, the direction in para. 53 of Umadevi (3) can be issued only if the petitioner-association prove that its members were appointed irregularly (not illegally) against sanctioned posts. I am afraid, the case of the petitioner-society is certainly not one where such exception for one time measure can be carved out as explained by the recent decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 . This decision also succinctly explained the distinction between an illegal appointment and irregular appointment. This is what it said: "7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularization" enunciated in Uma Devi (3)1, if the following conditions are fulfilled. (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the person appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered illegal. (ii) The appointment should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the person appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered illegal. But where the person possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointment, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 8. Umadevi (3)1 casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one time-measure. Umadevi (3)1 directed that such one time-measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). 9. The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 , each department or instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad-hoc employees whop have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their service. 22. If at the end of six months, such exercise is not complete, what will happen is again dealt with by the Apex Court in para. 10 of the same judgment, which reads thus: "10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 , cases of several daily wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para. 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3)1, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the six months period mentioned in para. 53 of Umadevi (3)1 has expired. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para. 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3)1, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the six months period mentioned in para. 53 of Umadevi (3)1 has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily wages/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise of para. 53 of Umadevi (3)1, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para. 53 of Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the employer should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para. 53 of Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 , are so considered." 23. The last point for consideration is whether this Court in exercise of its equity jurisdiction, regard being had of the pathetic conditions of members of the petitioner-association and the misery and the hardship suffered by them, is helpless to come to their rescue. Heavily relying on Dwarka Nath case (supra), the learned senior counsel submits that Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power to reach injustice wherever it is found and can mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of the case. In my opinion, such contention cannot be accepted. This submission reminds me of the observations of the Apex Court in State of H.R. vs. P.O. Attri & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 21 wherein it said that respondents' case is not based on any constitutional or any other legal provisions; they do not allege violation of any constitutional provision or any other provision of law; their claim is based on "accepted policy and common practice", which according to them, are undisputed; such vague principles cannot be imported while interpreting provisions of law. Once the petitioner-association cannot come forward with proof that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mothers by the respondent authorities, the question of violation of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India does no arise. Once the petitioner-association cannot come forward with proof that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mothers by the respondent authorities, the question of violation of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India does no arise. However, the following observations of the Apex Court in Dental Council of India vs. Harpreet Kaur Bal & Ors., 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 304, clinch the issue against the petitioner-association: "4. There are many pronouncements of this Court cautioning against exercise of jurisdiction characterised more by benevolence than on settled legal principles. A relief must be such as could be considered permissible in law and worked out by the application of legally recognised principles. The decision must have legitimacy of legal reasoning and should not incur the criticism of lacking objectivity of purpose and rational and legal justification. Where an educational institution embarks upon granting admissions without the requisite affiliation and recognition and the students join the institution with their eyes wide open as to the lack of legitimacy in the admission, it will be preposterous to direct the University to hold examinations for the benefit of such students. We cannot sufficiently deplore this attitude and approach. The High Court has by its order, simply bolstered the hopes and aspirations of these students without any means of gratifying those expectations in a manner known to law. We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the order under appeal as totally justified." (Underlined for emphasis) 24. Sympathy/hardship or humanitarian consideration cannot be a ground for granting relief when not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. I am not unmindful of the plight of the members of the petitioner-association: in fact, all my sympathies are for them. I wish I could be of some help to them, but my hands are tight. I must decide their case only according to law and not on the basis of sympathy. If I do decide the case on humanitarian ground, I will be exceeding my jurisdiction: I cannot take over the function of the political executive and the State Legislature. Moreover, the budgetary implications cannot be lost sight while issuing reckless directions. The Apex Court has an occasion to deal with submissions of this nature in Umadevi case (supra) and the need for circumspection by Courts while considering the prayer for regularization, was emphasized in para. 19 of the judgment in the following manner: "19. Moreover, the budgetary implications cannot be lost sight while issuing reckless directions. The Apex Court has an occasion to deal with submissions of this nature in Umadevi case (supra) and the need for circumspection by Courts while considering the prayer for regularization, was emphasized in para. 19 of the judgment in the following manner: "19. One aspect arises. Obviously, the State is also controlled by economic considerations and financial implications of any public employment. The viability of the department or the instrumentality of the project is also of equal concern for the state. The State works out the scheme taking into consideration the financial implications and the economic aspects. Can a Court impose on the State a financial burden of this nature by insisting on regularization or permanence in employment, when those employed temporarily are not needed permanently or regularly? As an example, we can envisage a direction to give permanent employment to all those who are being temporarily or casually employed in a public section undertaking. The burden may become so heavy by such a direction that the undertaking itself may collapse under is own weight. It is not as if this has not happened. So, the Court ought not to impose a financial burden on the State by such directions, as such directions may turn counter-productive." 25. No constitutional or legal right is made out by the petitioner-association calling for the interference of this Court. If at all, the members of the petitioner-association have any grievance on the ground of hardship or on humanitarian grounds, it is the political executive and the State Legislature, and not the court of law, which can redress such grievance. However, I cannot end the judgment without quoting the apt and befitting observations of the Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (1997) 2 SCC 1 given in a case somewhat similar to this case: "13. So far as the question of confirmation of these employees whose entry itself was illegal and void, is concerned, it is to be noted that question of confirmation or regularization of an irregularly appointed candidates would arise if the candidate concerned is appointed in an irregular manner or on ad hoc basis against an available vacancy which is already sanctioned. So far as the question of confirmation of these employees whose entry itself was illegal and void, is concerned, it is to be noted that question of confirmation or regularization of an irregularly appointed candidates would arise if the candidate concerned is appointed in an irregular manner or on ad hoc basis against an available vacancy which is already sanctioned. But if the initial entry itself is unauthorised and is not against any sanctioned vacancy, question or regularising the incumbent on such a non-existing vacancy would never survive for consideration and even if such purported regularisation or confirmation is given it would be an exercise in futility. It would amount to decorating a still-born baby. Under these circumstances, there was no occasion to regularise them or to given them valid confirmation. The so-called exercise of confirming these employees, therefore, remained a nullity...............The whole exercise remained in the realm of an unauthorised venture. Nothing could come out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Zero multiplied by zero remains zero. Consequently, no sustenance can be drawn by the appellants from these confirmation orders issued to them by Dr. Mullick on the basis of the directions issued by the authorities concerned at the relevant time. It would amount to back-door entries which were vitiated from the very inception. It is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the vacancies on the Scheme had nothing to do with regular posts. Whether they are posts or vacancies they must be backed by budgetary provisions so as to be included within the permissible infrastructure of the Scheme. Any posting which is dehors the budgetary grant and non-existing vacancy would be outside the sanctioned scheme and would remain totally unauthorised. No right would accrue to the incumbent of such an imaginary or shadow vacancy." (Underlined for emphasis) 26. Finally, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that denying payment of the remuneration to the petitioners herein while making payment to the School Mothers under the BTC amounts to discrimination and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is not known on what basis the School Mothers have been paid their remunerations. Finally, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that denying payment of the remuneration to the petitioners herein while making payment to the School Mothers under the BTC amounts to discrimination and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is not known on what basis the School Mothers have been paid their remunerations. In any case, in the light of my findings that the petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions were never appointed against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal process of recruitment consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution, parallel claim cannot be made by them. Assuming that the School Mothers under BTC were appointed against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal recruitment process, the petitioners herein cannot claim similar treatment as they do not belong to the same class. Again, assuming that the BTC authorities did pay the remunerations of those School Mothers even when they were never appointed against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the recognized recruitment procedure, such illegal treatment/benefit given to them cannot be used by the petitioners as a precedent to claim similar treatment/benefit. The offshoot of the foregoing discussion is that this writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs. 2. W.P.(C) No. 2555/2008 In this writ petition, the same petitioner-association, representing another 297 (two hundred and ninety-seven) of its members seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. As in the W.P.(C) No. 1468 of 2007, this writ petition has no merits and hereby dismissed but by directing he parties to bear their respective costs. 3. W.P.(C) No. 5006/2008 In this writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 claims that she was appointed as School Mother for No. 146 Sakhorbara L.P. School on 4.11.1958 by the Secretary, School Board, Jorhat and has since then been continuing in that capacity without any remuneration or regularization of her service. As in the previous cases, there is no evidence to substantiate her claim that she was ever given such appointment by the State-respondents against sanctioned post or in accordance with the normal recruitment process. As in the previous cases, there is no evidence to substantiate her claim that she was ever given such appointment by the State-respondents against sanctioned post or in accordance with the normal recruitment process. In so far as the Petitioner No. 2 is concerned, there is no whisper of statement as to when and in what capacity and for what school, she was appointed, is not even mentioned. This writ petition must also meet the same fate and is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. W.P.(C) No. 5907/2012 In this writ petition, there are 40 (forty) petitioners seeking regularization of their ser vices in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. As in the previous cases, they are not able to prove that they were ever appointed/engaged as School Mothers by he State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the regular recruitment process. Therefore, there is no merit in their writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. 5. W.P.(C) No. 3274/2012 In this writ petition, there are 42 (forty-two) petitioners, who are also claiming the reliefs claimed in the foregoing writ petitions. As in the previous cases, there is no evidence to prove that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with a regular recruitment process. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. 6. W.P.(C) No. 1942 of 2012 There are 41 (forty-one) petitioners in this writ petition claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services rendered by them in that post. In the previous cases, they are not able to prove that they were appointed/engaged by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the regular recruitment process. Therefore, this writ petition must also meet the same fate, and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 7. W.P.(C) No. 2548/2010 In this writ petition, there are 9 (nine) petitioners, who are also claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of current and past remuneration for the services allegedly rendered by them. Therefore, this writ petition must also meet the same fate, and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 7. W.P.(C) No. 2548/2010 In this writ petition, there are 9 (nine) petitioners, who are also claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of current and past remuneration for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the foregoing cases, they are not able to make any case for the intervention of this Court since they are unable to prove that they were appointed/engaged by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the regular process of recruitment. The writ petition has no merit, and is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. W.P.(C) No. 4320/2012 There are 40 (forty) petitioners in this writ petition. They are also seeking regularization of their services as School Mother and payment of past and present remuneration for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the foregoing writ petitions, no shred of evidence could be produced by the petitioners to demonstrate that they were appointed/engaged against sanctioned posts by the Government of Assam and in accordance with the regular process of recruitment. The writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 9. W.P.(C) No. 262/2009 There are 148 (one hundred and forty-eight) petitioners in this writ petition seeking regularization of their services as School Mother and for payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the foregoing cases, none of the petitioners are able to substantiate their claim that they were appointed/engaged by the Government of Assam against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the regular process of recruitment The writ petition is bereft of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. 10. W.P.(C) No. 1481/2009 There are 92 (ninety two) petitioners in this writ petition claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of current and past salary for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to prove that he was appointed/engaged as School Mother by the Government against a sanctioned post and in accordance with the procedure laid down law. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. No costs. 11. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to prove that he was appointed/engaged as School Mother by the Government against a sanctioned post and in accordance with the procedure laid down law. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. No costs. 11. W.P.(C) No. 2631/2009 In this writ petition, there are 24 (twenty four) petitioners, who are seeking the same relief of regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of their past and current remuneration for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the foregoing cases, in the absence of any acceptable evidence to demonstrate that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the Government against the sanctioned posts and in accordance with the prescribed procedure of recruitment, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. No costs. 12. W.P.(C) No. 3820 of 2009 This writ petition is filed by the same association, namely, "Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 28 persons. The relief claimed is for regularization of the services of the said 28 persons to the post of School Mother and for payment of remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the earlier case, no shred of evidence is produced by the petitioner-association to prove that these 28 individuals were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with regular recruitment process. There is, therefore, no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed but by directing the parties to bear their respective costs. 13. W.P.(C) No. 1323/2010 This writ petition is also filed by Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) for and on behalf of 144 (one hundred and forty-four) individuals claiming regularization and payment of current and past salary for the services allegedly rendered by them in the post of School Mother. As in the foregoing cases, the petitioner-association is unable to prove that these individuals were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the regular recruitment process. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. 14. As in the foregoing cases, the petitioner-association is unable to prove that these individuals were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the regular recruitment process. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. 14. W.P.(C) No. 5031/2008 In this writ petition, the same association, namely, "Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) is representing 773 (seven hundred and seventy three) members seeking the relief of regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and for payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioner-association is unable to prove that its members were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. The writ petition is bereft of merit and, therefore, dismissed. No costs. 15. W.P.(C) No. 1123/2009 21 (twenty-one) petitioners joined together to file this writ petition through the General Secretary of Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) for regularization of their services as School Mother and for payment of their past and current salary for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the earlier cases, the petitioner-association has miserably failed to prove that its members were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. The writ petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. 16. W.P.(C) No. 1126 of 2009 61 (sixty-two) petitioners are filing this writ petition through the General Secretary of the same association, namely, Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) seeking regularization of their services against the post of School Mother and payment of current an past remuneration for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, no shred of evidence could be produced by the petitioner-association to establish that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the regular recruitment process. Therefore, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. 17. As in the previous cases, no shred of evidence could be produced by the petitioner-association to establish that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the regular recruitment process. Therefore, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. 17. W.P.(C) No. 1839/2009 14 (fourteen) member of the Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) are filing this writ petition through its General Secretary claiming regularization of their services against the post of School Mother and payment of past and current salary for the services allegedly rendered by them. The petitioner-association has miserably failed to prove that its members were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the prescribed procedure for recruitment. Therefore, the question of regularization or payment of salary, current or otherwise, does not arise. Resultantly, the writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Costs. 18. W.P.(C) No. 5015/2008 This writ petition is filed by 436 (four hundred and thirty) petitioners seeking regularization of their service against the post of School Mother and for payment of their remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioners are not able to substantiate their claim that there were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the state Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal process of recruitment: Therefore, there is no merit in their writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. No costs. 19. W.P.(C) No. 5012/2008 This writ petition is filed by 280 (two hundred and eighty) petitioners, who are seeking regularization of their services against the post of School Mothers and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the earlier cases, the petitioners cannot produce any shred of evidence to prove that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother and in accordance with the regular recruitment process. Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. No costs. 20. W.P.(C) No. 5014/2008 This writ petition is filed 157 (one hundred and fifty seven) petitioners claiming the relief of regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and for payment of remuneration of salary, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. No costs. 20. W.P.(C) No. 5014/2008 This writ petition is filed 157 (one hundred and fifty seven) petitioners claiming the relief of regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and for payment of remuneration of salary, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioners are not able to prove that they are ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. They are not, therefore, entitled to the reliefs claimed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed by directing the parties to bear their respective costs. 21. W.P.(C) No. 5010/2008 There are 94 (ninety-four) petitioners in this writ petition seeking regularization of their services against the posts of School Mother and for payment of their remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them. Interestingly, none of the petitioners are able to substantiate their case that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. Therefore, this writ petition sans merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. 22. W.P.(C) No. 3226/2010 15 (fifteen) petitioners are filing this writ petition through the General Secretary of Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the former cases, there is no evidence to show that the petitioners were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the state Government and in accordance with the regular recruitment process. Consequently, they are not entitled to the reliefs claimed. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed but without cost. 23. W.P.(C) No. 6637/2010 This writ petition is filed by 38 (thirty-eight) petitioners through the General Secretary, Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) for directing the State-respondents to regularize their services in the post of School Mother and for payment of their remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, no shred of evidence could be produced by the any of the petitioners to demonstrate that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government and in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. As in the previous cases, no shred of evidence could be produced by the any of the petitioners to demonstrate that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government and in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed but without costs. 24. W.P.(C) No. 4563 of 2011 There are 4 (four) petitioners in this writ petition claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioners have miserably proved that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal selection process. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed but without saddling the petitioners with costs. 25. W.P.(C) No. 2370/2009 This writ petition is filed 6 (six) petitioners seeking regularization of their services as School Mother and for payment of remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the former cases, there is no shred of evidence to substantiate the case of the petitioners that they were engaged/appointed as School Mother by the State Government and in accordance with the recruitment procedure laid down by law. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. No costs. 26. W.P.(C) No. 5004/2008 In this writ petition filed by 11 (eleven) petitioners, they are seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of their remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners could produce any shred of evidence to substantiate their case that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. Resultantly, this writ petition sans is hereby dismissed without costs. 27. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners could produce any shred of evidence to substantiate their case that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. Resultantly, this writ petition sans is hereby dismissed without costs. 27. W.P.(C) No. 5357/2008 This writ petition is filed by a registered association under the name and style of "Gohpur Makhuma School Matri Santha, a sub-divisional committee under the All Assam School Mothers' Association", for and on behalf of its 200 (two hundred) members for regularizing their services in the post of School Mother and for payment of their remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioner-association has miserably failed to produce any evidence worth the name to prove that these member represented by it were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the state Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 28. W.P.(C) No. 3141/2011 This writ petition is also filed 19 (nineteen) petitioners through the General Secretary of Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Mari Santha (Assam School Mothers' Association) seeking regularization of their services against the post of School Mother and for payment of their remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. Since the facts in this case and those in the previous cases are on all fours, this case must also meet the same fate. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed without costs. 29. W.P.(C) No. 432/2012 This writ petition is filed by 48 (forty-eight) petitioners, who are claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to prove that they were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. The writ petition is, therefore, without merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 30. W.P.(C) No. 2055/2012 In this writ petition, there are 33 (thirty-three) petitioners, who are seeking regularization of their services against the post of School Mother and payment of their remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. The writ petition is, therefore, without merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 30. W.P.(C) No. 2055/2012 In this writ petition, there are 33 (thirty-three) petitioners, who are seeking regularization of their services against the post of School Mother and payment of their remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. In this case also, no shred of evidence could be produced by any of the petitioners to demonstrate that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the regular process of recruitment. This writ has, therefore, no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs. 31. W.P.(C) No. 4757/2012 In this writ petition, there are 32 (thirty-two) petitioners, who are also claiming regularization of their services against the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As the facts in this case are on all fours, this writ petition is governed by my decision in the previous cases. Consequently, this writ petition sans merit is hereby dismissed but without costs. 32. W.P.(C) No. 4319/2012 This writ petition is filed by 35 (thirty-five) petitioners seeking directions for regularizing their services in the post of School Mother and for payment of remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the former cases, none of the petitioners are able to prove that they were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the prescribed recruitment process consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This writ petition has, therefore, no merit and is hereby dismissed without costs. 33. W.P.(C) No. 2183/2010 This writ petition is filed 8 (eight) petitioners seeking the intervention of this Court for directing the respondent authorities to regularize their services in the post of School Mother and to pay their remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. In this writ petition also, no shred of evidence could be procured by the petitioners to demonstrate that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the recognised recruitment process. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is, therefore, dismissed but without costs. 34. In this writ petition also, no shred of evidence could be procured by the petitioners to demonstrate that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the recognised recruitment process. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is, therefore, dismissed but without costs. 34. W.P.(C) No. 635/2013 In this writ petition, there are 18 (eighteen) petitioners, who are claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, no acceptable evidence could be procured by the petitioners to prove that they were appointed/engaged by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the prescribed procedure for recruitment. Consequently, no case is made out by them warranting the interference of this court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed without costs. 35. W.P.(C) No. 5030/2008 This writ petition is also filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 451 (four hundred and fifty-one) members who are claiming regularizing of services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioner-association is unable to produce any evidence to substantiate that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal recruitment process. There is, therefore, no merit in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 36. W.P.(C) No. 1122/2009 This writ petition is also filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) for and on behalf of 47 of its members seeking regularization of their services and payment of remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the foregoing cases, the petitioner-association cannot produce any shred of evidence its case that its members were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. Resultantly, this writ petition sans merit is hereby dismissed without costs. 37. As in the foregoing cases, the petitioner-association cannot produce any shred of evidence its case that its members were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. Resultantly, this writ petition sans merit is hereby dismissed without costs. 37. W.P.(C) No. 1482/2009 In this writ petition also, the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) is representing 40 (forty) of its members claiming regularization of their services against the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration for the current and past services allegedly rendered by them. Since the facts in this case are in pari material with the facts in the previous cases, there is no ground for the interference of this Court and, as such, this case must meet the same fate. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs. 38. W.P.(C) No. 2634/2009 In this writ petition, there are 17 (seventeen) petitioners represented by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) seeking regularization of their services against the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration of current and past salary for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioner-association is unable to procure any evidence to show that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the procedure consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, this writ petition without merit is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. 39. W.P.(C) No. 5006/2009 This writ petition is also filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha representing 58 (fifty-eight) of its members seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of their current and past remuneration for the services allegedly rendered by them. In this writ petition also, no shred of evidence could be produced by the petitioner-association to demonstrate that its members were appointed/engaged by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal recruitment process. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 40. In this writ petition also, no shred of evidence could be produced by the petitioner-association to demonstrate that its members were appointed/engaged by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal recruitment process. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 40. W.P.(C) No. 1125/2009 This writ petition is also filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 36 (thirty-six) of its members, who are claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of their remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioner-association has utterly failed to prove that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the regular recruitment process. Resultantly, this writ petition must meet the same fate as in the former cases. The writ is hereby dismissed but without costs. 41. W.P.(C) No. 1399/2009 This writ petition is also filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Shanti (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 22 (twenty-two) of its members, who claim regularization of their services against the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As no shred of evidence is produced by the petitioner-association to prove that these members were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the regular recruitment process, the interference of this Court is not warranted. Consequently, this writ petition devoid of merit is hereby dismissed but without costs. 42. W.P.(C) No. 1646/2010 This writ petition is also filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 67 (sixty-seven) of its members, who claim regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous eases, the petitioner-association has miserably failed to prove that these members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with normal recruitment process. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 43. As in the previous eases, the petitioner-association has miserably failed to prove that these members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with normal recruitment process. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 43. W.P.(C) No. 1868/2010 This writ petition is also filed the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 14 (fourteen) of its members claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioner-association is unable to prove that these members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the regular recruitment process. This writ petition has, therefore, no merit and is dismissed without costs. 44. W.P.(C) No. 6197/2013 There are 23 (twenty) petitioners in this writ petition seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the former cases, none of the petitioners are able to prove that they were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts and in accordance with the normal recruitment process. They are, therefore, not entitled to any relief from this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed without costs. 45. W.P.(C) No. 1864/2010 This writ petition is also filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 25 (twenty-five) of its members, who are claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, no shred of evidence could be procured by the petitioner-association to prove the appointment/engagement of these twenty five members represented by it by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with regular recruitment process. The writ petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed. 46. W.P.(C) No. 5656/2012 This writ petition is filed by 21 (twenty-one) petitioners seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. The writ petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed. 46. W.P.(C) No. 5656/2012 This writ petition is filed by 21 (twenty-one) petitioners seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, no shred of evidence can be produced by the petitioner to substantiate that they were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with regular recruitment process. There is, therefore, no merit in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 47. W.P.(C) No. 4632/2012 There are 67 (sixty-seven) petitioners in this writ petition claiming regularization of their services in the post for School Mother and payment of remuneration for the services allegedly rendered by them. In this case also, the petitioners are unable to procure acceptable evidence establish that they were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. The writ petition has, therefore, no merit and is accordingly dismissed. 48. W.P.(C) No. 5657/2012 This writ petition is filed by 61 (sixty-one) petitioners claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to prove that they were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government in sanctioned posts or in accordance with regular recruitment process. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 49. W.P.(C) No. 1124/2009 This writ petition is filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 17 (seventeen) of its members claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioners have miserably failed to prove that they were appointed/engaged by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal recruitment process. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in their writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 50. As in the previous cases, the petitioners have miserably failed to prove that they were appointed/engaged by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal recruitment process. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in their writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 50. W.P.(C) No. 4834/2010 In this writ petition also, the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) is representing 23 (twenty-three) of its members, who are claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, no shred of evidence could be produced by the petitioner-association to demonstrate that these twenty-three members of its association were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government or in accordance with the recognized procedure for recruitment. The writ petition is thus devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed without costs. 51. W.P.(C) No. 3841/2012 This writ petition is filed by 49 (forty-nine) petitioners seeking regularization of their services against the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the former writ petitions, none of the petitioners are able to substantiate their claim that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the recognised procedure for recruitment. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed but without costs. 52. W.P.(C) No. 2213/2012 This writ petition is filed by 14 (fourteen) petitioners seeking regularization in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. In this writ petition also, the petitioners have failed to establish that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the recognized recruitment process. Therefore, the writ petition is bereft of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed without costs. 53. W.P.(C) No. 6093/2011 This writ petition is filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing the 51 (fifty-one) petitioners claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. 53. W.P.(C) No. 6093/2011 This writ petition is filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing the 51 (fifty-one) petitioners claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioner-association is unable to produce any acceptable evidence to prove that the petitioners were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No costs. 54. W.P.(C) No. 2185/2012 In this writ petition, there are 70 (seventy) petitioners seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. In this case also, none of the petitioners are able to procure any acceptable evidence to prove that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned post or in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. Therefore, the writ petition, bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed without costs. 55. W.P.(C) No. 1386/2011 This writ petition is filed 35 (thirty-five) petitioners, who are claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to prove that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the regular process of recruitment. Consequently, the writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed without cost. 56. W.P.(C) No. 1121/2009 This writ petition is filed by 13 (thirteen) petitioners filed through the General Secretary of the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them. The petitioner-association is also unable to demonstrate that its members represented by it in this case were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the regular recruitment procedure. The writ petition has, therefore, no merit and is hereby dismissed without costs. 57. The petitioner-association is also unable to demonstrate that its members represented by it in this case were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the regular recruitment procedure. The writ petition has, therefore, no merit and is hereby dismissed without costs. 57. W.P.(C) No. 2126/2013 There are 13 (thirteen) petitioners in this writ petition seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to procure any acceptable evidence to prove that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with recognized recruitment procedure. Consequently, this writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed without costs. 58. W.P.(C) No. 1401/2009 There are 11 (eleven) petitioners in this writ petition claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. In this case also, the petitioners have failed to produce any acceptable evidence to prove that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the recognised recruitment process. Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 59. In this case also, the petitioners have failed to produce any acceptable evidence to prove that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the recognised recruitment process. Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 59. W.P.(C) No. 3159/2013 This writ petition is filed by the association under the name and style of "Prathamik Bidyalaya Matri Samannayrakshi Samiti registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 No. KAM(M) 240/A-23/259 of 2010-2011 representing 143 of its members from Jonai Sub-Division of Dhemaji District, 30 of its members from Tinsukia District, 256 of its members from Sivasagar District, 473 of its members of other Sub-Divisions of Dhemaji, 57 of its members from Lakhimpur District, 67 of its members from Jorhat District, 147 of its members Sonitpur District, 48 of its members from Marigaon District, 52 of its members in Dibrugarh District, 44 of its members from Dhubri District, 41 if its members from Kamrup District, 45 of its members from Nagaon District, 27 of its members from Udulguri District, 23 of its members from Golaghat District, 2 of its members from Nalbari District, 5 of its members from Bonggaigaon District and 2 of its members from Chirang District, who are claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, petitioner-association is unable to produce any shred of evidence to prove that its members were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against any sanctioned posts or in accordance with the recognised recruitment procedure. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed but without costs. 60. W.P.(C) No. 3461/2010 There are 183 (one hundred and eighty-three) petitioners in this writ petition seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to procure any clinching evidence to prove that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with regular process of recruitment The writ petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed without cost 61. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to procure any clinching evidence to prove that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with regular process of recruitment The writ petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed without cost 61. W.P.(C) No. 2544/2010 This writ petition is filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) for and on behalf of 30 (thirty) of its members seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioner-association is unable to produce any acceptable evidence to prove that its members were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the recognized recruitment procedure. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 62. W.P.(C) No. 4093/2010 This writ petition is also filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Sanha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 11 (eleven) of its members, who are claiming regularization of their service in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. In this case also, the petitioner-association has miserably failed to adduce any acceptable evidence to prove that its members were ever appointed/engaged by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal procedure of recruitment. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed without costs. 63. W.P.(C) No. 3710/2010 In this writ petition also, the same association, namely, Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 6 of its members seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, the petitioner-association is unable to prove that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, is dismissed without costs. 64. As in the previous cases, the petitioner-association is unable to prove that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, is dismissed without costs. 64. W.P.(C) No. 4822/2011 This writ petition is also filed by the same Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 37 (thirty-seven) of its members claiming regularization of their services and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the former cases, the petitioner-association is unable to prove that its members were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal recruitment procedure. There, this writ petition sans merit is hereby dismissed without costs. 65. W.P.(C) No. 3602/2012 There are 55 (fifty-five) petitioners in this writ petition seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to produce any shred of evidence to show that they were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. 66. W.P.(C) No. 6196/2013 This writ petition is filed 45 (forty-five) petitioners, who claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and current, for the services allegedly rendered by them. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to adduce any acceptable evidence to demonstrate that they were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the state-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. This is writ petition without merit is, therefore, dismissed without costs. 67. W.P.(C) No. 6410/2013 In this writ petition, there are 68 (sixty-eight) petitioners claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. This is writ petition without merit is, therefore, dismissed without costs. 67. W.P.(C) No. 6410/2013 In this writ petition, there are 68 (sixty-eight) petitioners claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, current and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to substantiate that they were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal recruitment process. This writ petition sans merit is hereby dismissed without costs. 68. W.P.(C) No. 5638/2013 In this writ petition, 38 (thirty-eight) petitioners are claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. In this case also, there is no shred of evidence procured by any of the petitioners to establish that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal recruitment process. The writ petition has, therefore, no merit and is hereby dismissed without costs. 69. W.P.(C) No. 1400/2009 This writ petition is filed the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) for and on behalf of 33 (thirty-three) of its members claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. As in the previous cases, the petitioner-association is unable to prove that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed without costs. 70. W.P.(C) No. 1638/2010 This writ petition is also filed by Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 55 (fifty-five) of its members, who are seeking regularization in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. As in the former cases, the petitioner-association has miserably failed to prove that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal recruitment procedure. As in the former cases, the petitioner-association has miserably failed to prove that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State Government against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal recruitment procedure. This writ petition has, therefore, no merit and is hereby dismissed without costs. 71. W.P.(C) No. 1187/2012 This writ petition is filed by 68 (sixty-eight) petitioners seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to substantiate their case that they were appointed/engaged in the post of School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the procedure for recruitment. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 72. W.P.(C) No. 1321/2010 This writ petition is also filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. As in the previous cases, the petitioner-association is unable to produce any acceptable evidence to show that its members were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed without costs. 73. W.P.(C) No. 3180/2009 This writ petition is also filed by the Sodou Asom Prathamik Aru Majalia Bidyalaya Matri Santha (All Assam School Mothers' Association) representing 16 (sixteen) of its members claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. As in the previous case, the petitioner-association is unable to prove that its members were appointed/engaged by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the regular recruitment process. This writ petition is, therefore, without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs. 74. W.P.(C) No. 769/2014 This writ petition is filed 40 (forty) petitioners seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. This writ petition is, therefore, without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs. 74. W.P.(C) No. 769/2014 This writ petition is filed 40 (forty) petitioners seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. In this case also, none of the petitioners are able to produce any acceptable evidence to show that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the norms of recruitment process. This writ petition sans merit is, therefore, dismissed without costs. 75. W.P.(C) No. 777/2014 There are 56 (fifty-six) petitioners in this case seeking regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of their remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. As in the previous case, none of the petitioners are able to prove that they were appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal process of recruitment. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed without costs. 76. W.P.(C) No. 6409/2013 This writ petition is filed by 79 (seventy-nine) petitioners claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, present and past, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. As in the former cases, none of the petitioners could produce any shred of evidence to show that they were ever appointed by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with the normal recruitment process. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. 77. W.P.(C) No. 6193/2013 In this writ petition, there are 63 (sixty-three) petitioners, who are also claiming regularization of their services in the post of School Mother and payment of remuneration, past and present, for the services allegedly rendered by them in that post. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to prove that they were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with normal recruitment process. Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed without cost. As in the previous cases, none of the petitioners are able to prove that they were ever appointed/engaged as School Mother by the State-respondents against sanctioned posts or in accordance with normal recruitment process. Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed without cost. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the writ petitions shall not bar the respondent authorities from paying the fixed remuneration of Rs. 1,050/- (Rupees one thousand and fifty) only to any of the petitioners including the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 2183 of 2010 (if they have been so paid heretofore) notwithstanding any infirmity in their appointments. Petition dismissed