ORDER : 1. The petitioner before this Court is the Inclusive Education Resource Teachers Association, Andhra Pradesh, registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as “petitioners”). They are espousing the cause set up by the teachers, who are the Members, who have been teaching children with special needs, mentally deprived children etc., who are otherwise challenged. 2. This Court has heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate General appeared for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Learned Government Pleader for Education appeared for respondents 1 and 3, Sri Seena Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri B. Krishna Mohan, learned Assistant Solicitor General appeared for the 4th respondent; and Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel appeared for the impleading petitioners-respondents 5 to 18. 3. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows: “…to issue a Writ, order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.24, School Education (Exams) Department, dated 15.02.2019; Notification No.768/TRC-1/2018, dated 15.02.2019; as well as G.O.Ms.No.31, School Education (Exams) Department, dated 06.05.2019 issued by the respondents 1 to 3 and the Revised Schedule published on website on 13.05.2019 rescheduling the written examination to 31.05.2019 as bad in law, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India by setting aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to first rationalize/absorb the members of the petitioner Association permanently and then conduct fresh recruitment for the remaining posts in accordance with the decision of the respondents and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. As mentioned earlier the petitioner association states to represent special teachers meant to teach mentally and otherwise challenged children as per the Government of India and the State schemes. Initially, as can be seen from the averments in the various affidavits etc., filed a scheme called Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (in short “SSA”) was started in the year 2001. This scheme was implemented by the Union of India and the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter, in the year 2011, another scheme called Rashtriya Madhyamika Siksha Abhiyan (RMSA) started. This was meant for educating children upto 10th standard. This scheme was implemented by the Union of India and the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter, in the year 2011, another scheme called Rashtriya Madhyamika Siksha Abhiyan (RMSA) started. This was meant for educating children upto 10th standard. In the year 2011, a notification was issued by the 2nd respondent for the recruitment of Inclusive Education Resource Teachers (in short “IERT”). The members of the petitioner society appeared for the examination; they have all passed the examination and they were appointed throughout the State as IERT teachers on roster cum merit basis. Their services were taken on contract, but the contracts were being continuously extended. 5. In the year 2018, the SSA and RMSA were merged and new scheme was floated by the Government of India by name Samgra Siksha Abhiyan (in short “SMSA”). This SMSA is the merged scheme. The petitioners relying upon Clause 4.3.2 of the Framework for Implementation of the said scheme circulated by the Union of India claim that they should be rationalised first and remaining vacancies are to be filled through fresh appointment. Thereafter, the State issued notifications an examination was conducted. At this stage the Writ Petition was filed. Since the petitioners are urging that unless they are first rationalised and absorbed, the examination cannot be conducted, this Court granted an interim order dated 22.05.2019. This Court did not stop the examinations in their entirety. The members of the petitioner society were permitted to appear for the exam but their results were kept in abeyance. This order was passed on 22.05.2019. Thereafter, after the counters etc., were filed, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing with the consent of all the learned counsels. 6. The candidates, who appeared for the examination and who are not members of the IERT have filed an implead petition in I.A.No.1 of 2020. Since they claim that their rights are being affected by virtue of the orders passed by this Court and as they claim to be specially trained teachers, it was decided by this Court that the said group of petitioners should also be allowed to argue in the Writ. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2020 is allowed. 7. This Court has heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. At the outset, it is his contention that the petitioners have been rendering services from 2001-2019 i.e., for almost two decades. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2020 is allowed. 7. This Court has heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. At the outset, it is his contention that the petitioners have been rendering services from 2001-2019 i.e., for almost two decades. He also contends that the members of the petitioners were permitted to write examination (IERT) and they all qualified in the examination. He also argues that pursuant to qualifying in the examination, members of the society were given postings at various places throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh on a contractual basis. The contracts were uniformly being extended from time to time. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the services being rendered by the petitioners are virtually perennial and are also very special. He states that very few people have the necessary training and expertise to teach the mentally and otherwise challenged children. He points out that the members of the petitioner’s association have the necessary training and other expertise to teach the children. Therefore, he states that they are eligible for regularisation. Apart from that he also relies upon Clause 4.3.2 of the Framework for Implementation, which is circulated by the 4th respondent. Clause 4.3.2 of the Framework for Implementation is to the following effect: “4.3.2 – Resource Support: For providing resource support to CwSN, the existing human resource appointed under SSA and RMSA will be rationalised and the remaining vacancies to be filled through fresh appointment as per the norms provided at Annexure III.” 8. Learned counsel submits that the Government of India is the main implementing agency and as the scheme for implementation itself states that existing teachers should be rationalised first, the conduct of the examination for all the posts is not correct. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that only after the rationalisation is completed, for the rest of the posts the examination can be conducted. He also relies upon two judgments, which are annexed as material papers to the Writ Petition to argue this case. 9. The Commissioner of School Education initially filed a vacate stay petition in November, 2019. In the vacate stay petition it is urged that the notification was not issued in 2001 and that only in 2011-12 candidates were recruited as IERTs. 9. The Commissioner of School Education initially filed a vacate stay petition in November, 2019. In the vacate stay petition it is urged that the notification was not issued in 2001 and that only in 2011-12 candidates were recruited as IERTs. It is also asserted by the learned Government Pleader that these teachers were recruited purely on a contractual basis, which were being extended from time to time. It is argued vehemently that as the appointment is a contractual appointment, the petitioners are not entitled to claim regularisation. He also submits that the terms of the contract do not provide for regularisation and that mere extension of services under the contract would not also give a right to the petitioners to claim extension. 10. Thereafter, in February, 2019, additional papers were filed on behalf of the petitioners. A copy of the proceedings issued by the Additional Project Coordinator, DPEP, Kadapa, dated 22.02.2002 was filed. Learned senior counsel points out on the basis of this document that there was an advertisement in the dailies on 06.02.2002 calling for application. Basing on the said advertisement, the teachers were recruited and orders were issued on 22.02.2002. He points out that the order is issued by the Additional Project Coordinator, DPEP, Kadapa and copies were submitted to the District Educational Officer, Kadapa also. The copy of the advertisement dated 15.06.2011 is also filed showing that an advertisement was published under the Rajeev Vidya Mission for appointment of teachers for teaching children with special needs. 11. After this, an additional counter affidavit was filed through the learned Additional Advocate General, in which it is clarified that some mistakes were made in the original affidavit that was filed. In paragraph-5 it is specified that advertisement was issued during the year 2001-02 for engaging resource persons. The District Collectors called for the applications and selected the resource persons based on qualifications through a selection committee. However, it is stated that the petitioners were not engaged against sanctioned posts. Therefore, the Additional Advocate General (to justify the issuance of the second notification, which is now impugned) states that new educational qualifications are prescribed for the post of School Assistant. He points out that the earlier recruited special teachers did not have any special educational qualifications prescribed. He also points out that the teachers of the IERT were purely recruited on a contractual basis. He points out that the earlier recruited special teachers did not have any special educational qualifications prescribed. He also points out that the teachers of the IERT were purely recruited on a contractual basis. He draws a distinction between the groups and states that initially recruited persons were engaged for training students upto 8th class, whereas now under the new notification the teachers are being recruited to teach from 9th to 12th classes. He relies upon a sample of the contract of employment, which shows that the employees are merely contractual employees, whose services are terminable at will. Hence, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioners have no right to be considered. However, one of the other documents filed to show that the recruitment took place in the year 2002-03 for IERTs. A notification dated 05.07.2002 is also filed; also an order dated 22.02.2002, which is in pari materia to an order filed by the petitioner with their additional memo. 12. On behalf of the implead petitioners extensive arguments were advanced on the ground that the petitioners do not have the vested right to be considered for the rationalisation and that the petitioners are not working under RMSA. A distinction is again drawn that they only look after the children in the age group of 6 to 14 and not at the secondary stage. An issue was also raised about the membership of the association and the right of the petitioners to file a Writ Petition. The implead petitioners also state that they are more qualified in imparting education to school children at the secondary stage or senior secondary stage. Lastly, it is submitted that the rationalisation if any can only be done if a clear data is available and that the members of the petitioners have not specified the skills in which they are working or the scheme under which they are working. Therefore, the implead petitioners urged that as they are unemployed graduates with special qualifications, their rights would be impaired if the writ petition is allowed. 13. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has filed another memo pointing out the details of the membership of the petitioner’s association including their date of joining, the scheme in which they are working etc. 14. 13. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has filed another memo pointing out the details of the membership of the petitioner’s association including their date of joining, the scheme in which they are working etc. 14. The sequence of events has been detailed above in order to point out the manner in which the submissions were made. As a large number of papers were filed over time, a chronological description was adopted. 15. The gist of the submissions are as follows: (a) For the petitioners: It is stated that they have been validly recruited and that they have been continuously rendering services (2001-2019). (b) That the scheme is implemented by the Union of India and the State of Andhra Pradesh and the scheme itself provides for rationalisation of the services under Clause 4.3.2. Therefore, they are entitled to rationalisation first and only for the balance of the posts the recruitment can be carried on. (c) For the State, initially it was argued that the petitioners were not recruited in 2001-02, but later the supplementary affidavit clarifies that they were recruited in 2001-02, but are merely “contract” employees. However, it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to rationalisation and an issue is also raised about the maintainability of the Writ by the Association. (d) For the implead petitioners it is argued that the scheme which is now promulgated is different as it pertains to recruitment of teachers at the secondary school level and that the petitioners do not have vested right to be rationalised and that permitting the rationalisation will deprive them of their rights. 16. This Court after hearing all the learned counsel notices that the latest scheme in question presently is a merger of the schemes. The Samagra Siksha Abhiyan (SMSA), an integrated scheme for school education has been promoted by the 4th respondent. The scheme document is filed by the implead petitioners. This document shows that initially the central scheme that was floated was SSA. Later, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act was promulgated in 2009. This gave a right of compulsory education to every child in the age group of 6 to 18 years. Thereafter, RMSA was initiated in 2009 for improvement of the secondary education system to vocationalisation of secondary and senior secondary education and inclusive education for disabled were substituted in the RMSA. 17. This gave a right of compulsory education to every child in the age group of 6 to 18 years. Thereafter, RMSA was initiated in 2009 for improvement of the secondary education system to vocationalisation of secondary and senior secondary education and inclusive education for disabled were substituted in the RMSA. 17. Reading of the scheme would show that number of parallel institutional arrangements were made at National, State, District level etc., which lead to duplication of efforts and personnel. Therefore, independent evaluation of schemes were suggested and an integration between all the schemes through a single school programme covering Grade 1 to 12 was thought of. Therefore, the Union Budge 2018-19 has decided to treat the school education holistically without segmentation from pre-school to Class-12. Hence, the new programme has been prepared. This is called SMSA (Clause 1.2.3 – The Samgra Shiksha – An Integrated Scheme on School Education envisages the ‘school’ as a continuum from pre-school, primary, upper primary, secondary to Senior Secondary levels). The funding for this programme is 60:40. 60% by the Centre, 40% by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Different funding patters are there for other areas/states. Clause 4.2.3-Resource Support of the scheme clearly state that for the purpose of resource support to the “Children with special needs” (CwSN), the existing human resource appointed under SSA and RMSA will be rationalised and the remaining vacancies to be filled through fresh appointment as per the norms provided at Annexure-III. In fact, the entire clause 4.3.2 is being printed here again: “4.3.2 – Resource Support: For providing resource support to CwSN, the existing human resource appointed under SSA and RMSA will be rationalised and the remaining vacancies to be filled through fresh appointment as per the norms provided at Annexure-III. All educators should be registered with Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI). These educators should mandatorily be available for all CwSN including the children with high support needs as well. The educators may be posted at the block or cluster level or as per the requirement and can operate in an itinerant mode, covering a group of schools where children with special needs are enrolled. (emphasis supplied) 18. All the learned counsel have relied upon various case laws to support their cases. However, this Court notices that the core issue is the scheme which is promulgated by the Union of Indian itself. (emphasis supplied) 18. All the learned counsel have relied upon various case laws to support their cases. However, this Court notices that the core issue is the scheme which is promulgated by the Union of Indian itself. In view of the fact that all the existing schemes were being merged into one scheme and the new Sarva Siksha Abhiyan is being brought into existence with a view to ensure that there is continuous education from preschool, primary, upper-primary, secondary to senior secondary levels, this Court is of the opinion that the distinction that is sought to be drawn by the State and the implead petitioners is not very relevant. The petitioners were also validly recruited. The initial stand of the Government has been modified and it is agreed that the IERT teachers were recruited in 2001-02. A copy of the order filed by the petitioners and the copy of the order filed by the State through the Additional Advocate General are in pari materia. In 2011-12 there was an examination, which was taken by the teachers. After the examination they were appointed on contractual basis and their contracts were being renewed continuously. The job does not appear to have any real breaks and the teaching is virtually perennial. The objective behind the scheme is to provide special education facilities to the children with special needs (children who are suffering from congenital or other defects). Therefore, in order to ensure that they would get a proper education with vocationalisation, the scheme was being promulgated and run. The merger of these two scheme has also been done with a view to provide continuous education for the children from pre-primary to secondary level. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that Clause 4.3.2 of the scheme is to be made applicable. At the very outset, it clearly provides for rationalisation of existing resources in the SSA and the RMSA scheme and the remaining vacancies alone are to be filled through a fresh appointment. The scheme itself provides for rationalisation of the existing human resources appointed under the earlier schemes. The documents filed by the parties clearly show that the petitioners are entitled to the order as prayed for. However, the question remains as to what needs to be done for the rationalisation. 19. The scheme itself provides for rationalisation of the existing human resources appointed under the earlier schemes. The documents filed by the parties clearly show that the petitioners are entitled to the order as prayed for. However, the question remains as to what needs to be done for the rationalisation. 19. In view of the discussions above and in line with the judgments of the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court in Shafi O.P. and Others v State of Kerala, WP © No.2470 of 2013 (G) Kerala HC, dt.30.06.2016 the State government-3rd respondent is directed to frame a scheme to regularise the resource teachers, who have put in more than 10 years of service. For the resource teachers, who have been in continuous service and possess qualifications as prescribed, the scheme shall ensure that they are given regular pay scales and service benefits as ordinary teachers in the State. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The State shall give all the benefits, based on the scheme to all the eligible petitioners in this writ petition, without any further delay. Till the scheme is framed and implemented the qualified teachers shall not be terminated from the services. 20. The last issue that survives is the right of the petitioner to file this Writ Petition as an association. Learned senior counsel relied upon P. Seshadri v S. Mangati Gopal Reddy, (2011) 5 SCC 484 and fairly submitted that a Writ Petition, regarding dispute in service matter, cannot be entertained unless the High Court is satisfied and the credentials, motive and objectives of the petitioners. He argues that the petitioner is espousing the genuine cause of the member teachers. This Court is satisfied that the petitioners are espousing the cause of its individual members. Initially an objection was raised about the membership etc. Documents have been filed to show that the petitioner association is representing various members, whose details are filed along with Memo (I.A.No.2 of 2019). Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner association can espouse the genuine cause of its members. With these observations the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction as given in the previous paragraphs. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner association can espouse the genuine cause of its members. With these observations the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction as given in the previous paragraphs. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.