Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, stated at the Bar that the reply filed in CWP No. 2172 of 2014 be treated as reply in other writ petitions also. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) stated at the Bar that he is under instructions not to file rejoinder. Their statements are taken on record. Ordered accordingly. The right of the writ petitioner(s) to file rejoinder is also closed. 2. The writ petitions are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The writ petitioners were selected by the Selection Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman (SSA); were deputed in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (Avasia/Hostel); are holding the position and manning the respective posts of Warden- cum-Teacher, Clerk-cum-Accountant, Cook, Chowkidar, Peon-cum- Helper and Sweeper, against which they were selected, right from the date of their appointment. Now, they are being shown door in terms of the order made by the State Project Director (SSA/RMSA), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, in terms of Annexures P-7 and P-8. It is further contended that the said orders have been passed in terms of the instructions issued by respondent No. 7. 4. The State-respondents No. 1 to 6 have filed reply stating therein that they have complied with the instructions issued by the Union of India-respondent No. 7, the financing authority, in terms of the communication-report of the Evaluation Team of Central Government, dated 23rd December, 2013 (Annexure R-1). However, it has been stated in the reply that they are trying to explore the possibility of retaining the writ petitioners and not to show door to the persons, who are holding the said posts of Warden-cum-Teacher, Clerk-cum-Accountant, Cook, Chowkidar, Peon-cum-Helper and Sweeper. 5. In para 3 of the reply filed by the State-respondents No. 1 to 6 in CWP No. 2172 of 2014, it has been stated that the writ petitioner is not being ousted. It is apt to reproduce para 3 of the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 6 herein: “3. That keeping in view the report of the Evaluation team of Central Govt. annexed at Annexure R1, State Project Director (SSA/RMSA) took action accordingly in larger interest of the safety of the girls residing in the girls hostel. Regarding entering in the girls hostel, the directions are very clear. That keeping in view the report of the Evaluation team of Central Govt. annexed at Annexure R1, State Project Director (SSA/RMSA) took action accordingly in larger interest of the safety of the girls residing in the girls hostel. Regarding entering in the girls hostel, the directions are very clear. The accountant has no job inside the girls hostel. He has been directed to sit in the adjoining school building. It is important to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble court that State Project Director (SSA/RMSA) has issued directions keeping in view the larger welfare of the existing staff. Therefore first option has been given to replace the existing male staff by their own female family member. Infact, the petitioner has not been desired to be removed and he has been just directed to set up his office in the adjoining school building. The accountant will sit only in the office of Principal- Incharge of concerned KGBV as annexed by the petitioner at annexure P-7 and they are not allowed to enter inside the KGBV hostel keeping in view safety, security and privacy of the girls. Moreover, his entry into the girls hostel is neither desired nor necessary of running of Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya. Therefore, the question of violation of article 14, 15 does not arise, hence this petition is not maintainable.” 6. Heard. 7. Keeping in view the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 6 read with the instruction No. 5 contained in Annexure R-1, dated 23rd December, 2013, respondents No. 1 to 6 had to pass orders in order to regulate the practice of hiring male staff, who are manning the posts of Warden-cum-Teacher, Clerk-cum-Accountant, Cook, Chowkidar, Peoncum- Helper and Sweeper. It is apt to reproduce para 5 of the communication, dated 23rd December, 2013, Annexure R-1 herein: “5. The practice of hiring male staff – especially accountant who stays in the KGBV from 9 am to 5 pm every day, cook and remedial teachers needs to be regulated/discontinued. Process of appointments in KGBV hostels need to be streamlined and made transparent and since it is a residential girls' school for girls a standard operating procedure for access to staff needs to be worked out before the next academic session.” 8. Process of appointments in KGBV hostels need to be streamlined and made transparent and since it is a residential girls' school for girls a standard operating procedure for access to staff needs to be worked out before the next academic session.” 8. In terms of para 5 of the communication, dated 23rd December, 2013, (Annexure R-1) (supra), the competent authority has to devise method how to streamline the process of appointments in KGBV in order to make them more transparent. 9. It has been mentioned in para 5 (supra) that the practice of hiring male staff, especially, the accountant, cook and remedial teachers needs to be regulated/discontinued. It appears that the respondents have made orders, which are impugned in these writ petitions, whereby under the garb of para 5 (supra), the male staff deputed in the KGBV is being discontinued, rather their services are being terminated, is not the object of the said communication and particularly, of para 5 (supra). 10. The definition of word “regulate” is given in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of 2000 at page 1071, which reads as under: “regulate : 1 to control sth by means of rules : [VN] The activities of credit companies are regulated by law. [V] It is up to the regulating authority to put the measures into effect. 2 [VN] to control the speed, pressure, temperature, etc. in a machine or system : This valve regulates the flow of water.” 11. In Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, the word “regulate” has been defined at page 1286 as under: “Regulate. To fix, establish, or control; to adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles or laws. The power of Congress to regulate commerce is the power to enact all appropriate legislation for its protection or advancement; to adopt measures to promote its growth and insure its safety; to foster, protect, control, and restrain. Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, Railway Employees Department of American Federation of Labor, C.C.A. Va., 84 F. 2d 641, 650. It is also power to prescribe rule by which commerce is to be governed, and embraces prohibitory regulations. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 657, 61 S.Ct. 451, 456, 85 L. Ed. 609. Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, Railway Employees Department of American Federation of Labor, C.C.A. Va., 84 F. 2d 641, 650. It is also power to prescribe rule by which commerce is to be governed, and embraces prohibitory regulations. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 657, 61 S.Ct. 451, 456, 85 L. Ed. 609. Regulate means to govern or direct according to rule or to bring under control of constituted authority, to limit and prohibit, to arrange in proper order, and to control that which already exists. Farmington River Co. v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Town of Farmington, 25 Conn.Sup. 125, 197 A. 2d 653, 660.” 12. While going through definition of the word “regulate”, it means that the competent authority has to regulate the system, how to utilize the services of the Accountants, cooks, remedial teachers and the other staff appointed in the KGBV. 13. The Apex Court in the cases titled as Himat Lal K. Shah versus Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and another, reported in (1973) 1 Supreme Court Cases 227; U.P. Cooperative Cane Unions Federations versus West U.P. Sugar Mills Association and others, reported in (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 430; and Union of India and others versus Asian Food Industries, reported in (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 542, has described the word “regulate”. It is apt to reproduce para 20 of the judgment in the case of U.P. Cooperative Cane Unions Federations' case (supra) herein: “20. The preamble of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 is an Act to regulate the supply and purchase of sugarcane for use in sugar factories, gur-, rab- or khandsari sugar manufacturing units. The various provisions of the Act show in unmistakable terms that it regulates the supply and purchase of sugarcane required for use in sugar factories. “Regulate” means to control or to adjust by rule or to subject to governing principles. It is a word of broad impact having wide meaning comprehending all facets not only specifically enumerated in the Act, but also embraces within its fold the powers incidental to the regulation envisaged in good faith and its meaning has to be ascertained in the context in which it has been used and the purpose of the statute.” 14. It is a word of broad impact having wide meaning comprehending all facets not only specifically enumerated in the Act, but also embraces within its fold the powers incidental to the regulation envisaged in good faith and its meaning has to be ascertained in the context in which it has been used and the purpose of the statute.” 14. In the latest judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case titled as Dr Subramanian Swamy versus State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 75, it has been held that the word “regulate” is difficult to define as having any precise meaning. It is a word of broad import, having a broad meaning and may be very comprehensive in scope. It is apt to reproduce para 67 of the judgment herein: “67. “Regulate” is defined as to direct; to direct by rule or restriction; to direct or manage according to the certain standards, to restrain or restrict. The word “regulate” is difficult to define as having any precise meaning. It is a word of broad import, having a broad meaning and may be very comprehensive in scope. Thus, it may mean to control or to subject to governing principles. Regulate has different set of meaning and must take its colour from the context in which it is used having regard to the purpose and object of the legislation. The word “regulate” is elastic enough to include issuance of directions, etc. (Vide K. Ramanathan v. State of T.N., (1985) 2 SCC 116 , and Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy, (2013) 8 SCC 345 .” 15. While going through para 5 of Annexure R-1 (supra) read with the definition of the word “regulate”, as reproduced hereinabove, it is nowhere provided that the services of the writ petitioners are to be discontinued. The words “regulated/ discontinued” have been used in para 5 of Annexure R-1, is suggestive of the fact that preference is to be given to the word “regulated” and second preference to “discontinued”. 16. While interpreting the communication, Annexure R-1, in its entirety, it is to be found what is the backdrop on the basis of which the said communication was made. 16. While interpreting the communication, Annexure R-1, in its entirety, it is to be found what is the backdrop on the basis of which the said communication was made. It is not known rather it is not forthcoming from the reply or the record why the impugned orders have been made without putting the system in place or without taking measures to regulate the procedure in terms of which the respondents have to regulate the services of the writ petitioners in order to achieve the aim, object and scope of the scheme effectively and in terms of the communication (supra). 17. Having said so, we deem it proper to direct the respondents-State to examine the case of the writ petitioners in light of the averments made in the writ petitions, the reply read with para 5 of the communication, dated 23rd December, 2013 (Annexure R-1) within two weeks and explore the possibility to achieve the mandate of the said communication without causing any injury/harm to the writ petitioners or to the girls who are waiting in queue for their selection. The interim directions shall remain in force till the decision is made. 18. It goes without saying that in case the final decision goes against the writ petitioners, they will be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy at appropriate stage. 19. The writ petitions are disposed of as indicated hereinabove alongwith all pending applications.