JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Since the issues involved in the instant batch of writ petitions are identical, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Prayer made in the writ petitions: 2. These writ petitions have been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following reliefs: (a). For direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners, who have been appointed on the post of para teachers under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, as per their seniority. (b).For direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the vacant and sanctioned posts of Assistant Teacher, on the basis of their valid appointment on the post of para teachers, on the ground that they have already completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year. (c).Further direction upon the respondents to pay salary and other allowances in favour of petitioners para teachers at par with regular Assistant Teachers, since they are discharging similar duty as that of regular Assistant Teachers. (d).For declaration of rules framed vide Notification No. 1632 dated 05.09.2012 (Rules, 2012) invalid/unconstitutional on the ground that even though the petitioners-para teachers who are working since last 5 to 15 years possessing the eligibility criteria as also have passed Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) Examination but no provision has been made for their regularization. (e).For direction upon the respondents to call for the Rule/Regulations from the State of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Orissa and other States regarding regularization of the post of para teachers and regularize the service of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teachers under the establishment of State Government. Brief facts of the case: 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petitions, read as under: The petitioners were engaged by different educational committees as para teachers under a scheme known as ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ (in short ‘SSA’), a flagship programme of the Government of India to universalize the elementary education and the Central Government in partnership with State Governments has implemented this scheme. After the engagement of petitioners as para teachers they started to discharge their duties. It is the case of the petitioners that even after rendering long length of service no endeavours have been made by the State Government to regularize their service. After the engagement of petitioners as para teachers they started to discharge their duties. It is the case of the petitioners that even after rendering long length of service no endeavours have been made by the State Government to regularize their service. The State Government although has come out with a Rule under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the purpose to fill up the post of Assistant Teachers but no provision has been made therein for regularization of services of para teachers. In that view of the matter, prayer has been made that the Rule made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India formulated vide Notification No. 1632 dated 05.09.2012 may be declared invalid and appropriate direction may be issued for regularization of services of the petitioners at par with Assistant Teachers appointed in regular establishment of State Government extending similar pay-scale on the basis of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ or in alternative minimum of pay-scale. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, with the consent of other learned counsel appearing in other cases, have led argument on behalf of petitioners. At the outset, it has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that so far as validity of the Rule notified vide Notification No. 1632 dated 05.09.2012 is concerned, petitioners are not pressing the same since the State Government has come out with a new Rule under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India notified vide Notification No. 238 dated 14.04.2022. It has been submitted that after coming into effect of the notification no. 238 dated 14.04.2022 known as “Jharkhand Assistant Teacher Service Conditions Rules, 2021” and amendment as contained in notification dated 28.09.2022 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2021’], the notification which is the subject matter of writ petition seeking it to be declared invalid has stand superseded, as such the petitioners does not want to press the same. 238 dated 14.04.2022 known as “Jharkhand Assistant Teacher Service Conditions Rules, 2021” and amendment as contained in notification dated 28.09.2022 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2021’], the notification which is the subject matter of writ petition seeking it to be declared invalid has stand superseded, as such the petitioners does not want to press the same. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that he is not challenging the Rules, 2021 as contained in Notification No. 238 dated 14.04.2022 as the State Government has come out with the Rule for regulating the service condition of the para teachers in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India; the implied meaning of the same is that the State Government is now considering the status of para teachers as regular Assistant Teacher. It has further been contended that the status of writ petitioners, who are working as para teachers, have also been recognized as government servant even before issuance of Notification No. 238 dated 14.04.2022 notified in exercise of power conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by coming into effect of Notification No. 2041 dated 21.08.2008, appended as Annexure 14 to W.P. (S) No. 2280 of 2017 (one of the cases in batch matter), therefore, contention has been made that right from the very beginning the status of para teachers are of government employee and as such they cannot be given different treatment in comparison to the Assistant Teachers, who are in regular establishment of the State Government. In the backdrop of these facts, submission has been made that it is a fit case where direction may be issued for regularization of services of writ petitioners para teachers by taking them in the regular establishment of the State Government mainly on the ground that they are discharging similar nature of duties since long as being discharged by Assistant Teachers, being appointed by the State Government. It has further been submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to pay-scale at par with the regular Assistant Teacher on the basis of applicability of principles of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It has further been submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to pay-scale at par with the regular Assistant Teacher on the basis of applicability of principles of ‘equal pay for equal work’. In alternative, it has been argued that the writ petitioners if not extended with the benefits of ‘equal pay for equal work’, then at least they may be given minimum of pay-scale so that they may not be subjected to exploitation. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors Vs. Kamal Prasad & Ors [(2014 SCC (7) 223] and the judgment rendered in State of Pubjab & Ors Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors [ (2017) 1 SCC 148 ] and also the judgment rendered in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors [ (2018) 8 SCC 238 ]. 6. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G-II appearing for the respondents-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the writ petitioners have got no right for regularization of their services mainly on the ground that their appointment are on contract basis under a scheme known as ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ floated by Central Government and run with collaboration of State Government by virtue of giving financial grant to the extent of 60:40 by the Central and State Government respectively. It has been submitted that since the appointments have been made under a Scheme which does not contain any condition for taking the services of the such para teachers inducting under the regular establishment of the State Government, the petitioners who are working as para teachers cannot be allowed to be considered for inducting them under regular establishment by regularizing their services. It has been contended so far as the issue of applicability of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is concerned, the writ petitioners are not entitled for ‘equal pay for equal work’ mainly for the reason that the petitioners are the engagee/apointee under a scheme and their mode of entry in service is quite different to that of the mode of entry of the Assistant Teachers under the permanent establishment of State Government. It has been contended that the principle of applicability of ‘equal pay for equal work’ can only be said to be applicable if there is no difference in the mode of recruitment and the nature of work. It has been contended that the principle of applicability of ‘equal pay for equal work’ can only be said to be applicable if there is no difference in the mode of recruitment and the nature of work. But, in the case in hand, the petitioners who are working as para teachers are the contract engagee under a scheme and are being appointed either at Village or Panchayat Level or Block level by the decision taken by the local committee (Village Education Committee) since they are considered to be either of the Panchayat cadre or Block cadre, they are not entitled for ‘equal pay for equal work’. So far as recruitment of Assistant Teacher under regular establishment is concerned, it is under the State cadre and are being appointed by floating wide publication of advertisement in order to fulfill the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid backdrop, submission has been made that writ petitioners are not entitled for applicability of principle of equal pay for equal work. It has further been contended making reference of Notification dated 14.04.2022 and 28.09.022 brought into effect in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India that the concern of the writ petitioners regarding their less honorarium and other service conditions have been taken into consideration depending upon the financial condition of the State Government and as such now the writ petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that they be inducted under the regular establishment of State Government. So far as the reliefs sought for holding the writ petitioners entitled for minimum of pay-scale is concerned the same is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that the principle of minimum of pay-scale is to be made applicable only in a case where the service of one or the other contractual employees/engagee is against the sanctioned post. But, in the case in hand, the writ petitioners have never been appointed on the sanctioned post rather they are contract engagee under a scheme floated by Central Government and run in collaboration with the State Government, as such the writ petitioners are also not entitled for minimum of pay-scale. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and others [ (2018) 13 SCC 560 ] and State of Bihar and others Vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and others [ (2019) 18 SCC 301 ]. 8. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the respondents-JEPC has adopted the argument advanced on behalf of the State but he in addition to that has submitted that since the respondents-JEPC is the executing agency as such is duty bound to follow the guideline/rules/regulations of the State Government and it is the State Government who is to justify its action. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the rules enshrined by the State of Jharkhand in exercise of power conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 10. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, on being instructed by other learned counsel on record, has submitted that since one of the prayer in the writ petition is quashing of Rule, 2012 and the same having been superseded by Rules, 2021 vide Notification No. 238 dated 14.04.2022, as such he has not pressed the issue of quashing of Rules, 2012. After validity of Rules, 2012 vide Notification No. 1632 dated 05.09.2012 having been not pressed, argument has been advanced on three count i.e., (i).To regularize the service of the petitioners as Assistant Teacher; (ii).To pay the para teachers at par with the regular assistant Teachers on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and (iii).In alternative at least the para teachers be paid minimum of pay-scale. 11. This Court, therefore, is required to answer following issues: (I). Whether the writ petitioners, who are working as para teachers on contract basis under a scheme, are entitled for regularization in service? (II). Whether the petitioners-para teachers can be held entitled for pay-scale at par with the regular Assistant teachers on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’? (III). Whether the writ petitioners who are working as para-teachers, in alternative, are entitled to get minimum of pay-scale? 12. Issue No. I: - So far issue no. (II). Whether the petitioners-para teachers can be held entitled for pay-scale at par with the regular Assistant teachers on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’? (III). Whether the writ petitioners who are working as para-teachers, in alternative, are entitled to get minimum of pay-scale? 12. Issue No. I: - So far issue no. (I) - Whether the writ petitioners, who are working as para teachers on contract basis under a scheme, are entitled for regularization in service? - is concerned, this Court before answering the issue deems it fit and proper to refer the background of launching of ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’. 13. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) is a flagship programme of the government of India started in the year 2001 to achieve the goal of universalization of elementary education. It is a response to the demand for quality basic education all over the country. The SSA programme is also an attempt to provide an opportunity for improving human capabilities to all children, through provision of community-owned quality education in a mission mode. There is also another goal to bridge social, regional and gender gaps, with the active participation of the community in the management of schools. The SSA has two aspects – (i). It provides a wide convergent framework for implementation of Elementary Education schemes; ii) It is also a programme with budget provision for strengthening vital areas to achieve universalisation of elementary education. So far financial norms under SSA is concerned, the assistance under the programme was initially in the ratio of 85:15 during the ninth Plan between the Central and State Government. It was in the ratio 75:25 sharing arrangement during the 10th Plan and thereafter it was 50:50 sharing between the Central and State Government and now it is in the ratio of 60:40 sharing between the Central and State Government. It has been decided that the Government of India would release funds directly to the State Implementation Society only in instalments. The further instalments would be released to the Society only after the State Government transfers its matching funds to the Society and expenditure of at least 50% of the funds (Centre and States) transferred has been effected. It has been decided that the Government of India would release funds directly to the State Implementation Society only in instalments. The further instalments would be released to the Society only after the State Government transfers its matching funds to the Society and expenditure of at least 50% of the funds (Centre and States) transferred has been effected. All funds to be used for up-gradation, maintenance, repair of schools and Teaching Learning Equipment and local management to be transferred to Village Education Committee/ School Management Committees/ Gram Panchayat/ or any other village/ school level arrangement for de-centralization adopted by that particular State/UT. Under the scheme, the State Implementation Society was required to be established. In the case in hand, the Jharkhand Education Project Council (in short ‘JEPC’) is such society who is implementing the mission of the scheme and is being represented by Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel. The SSA allows the engagement of professional on contractual terms. The other salient feature under the scheme is regarding teacher recruitment by which the States have their own norms for recruitment of teachers by taking free decision based upon their own norms as well norms established by National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE). There will be no compromise on standards even though payments are less than the State Government employee. It is, thus, evident that the scheme has been implemented for universalization of education to be achieved by 2010, which was extended from time to time. But after the 86th amendment imparting elementary education to the children in the age between 6 to 14 years has been made mandatory by insertion of a provision under the Constitution of India by way of Article 21-A. The Centre legislated an Act known as ‘The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009’ by which the elementary education for the age group of children 6 to 14 years have been made mandatory in order to achieve the mandate of constitutional amendment made by virtue of insertion of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and thereby SSA is still in operation. 14. 14. The State of Jharkhand, taking into consideration the spirit of the scheme, has come out with a rule in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by way of Notification No. 2041 dated 21.08.2008 (in short ‘Rules, 2008’) as would appear from Annexure 14 of the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2280 of 2017. In the aforesaid rule ‘para teacher has been defined under Rule 2 (ii) which means the teachers appointed on contract basis under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan on fixed honorarium by Village Education Committee under SSA. It further appears that the employment has been dealt with as under Rule 3 which is to be made by conducting combined competitive examination by a duly constituted district level committee under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner comprising four members, as provided under Rule 4 of Rules, 2008. It further appears from the provision of Rule 7 that the initially the honorarium was fixed to be paid in favour of one or the other para teachers to the tune of Rs. 5100/- with enhancement of Rs. 500/- on expiry of every three years. Under Rule 13, the provision has been made for disciplinary action which has been empowered to be initiated on recommendation of the Village Education Committee/Panchayat Sammitee/Block Education Extension Officer by Block Level Committee. The writ petitioners, who have been appointed the day when the scheme was launched is covered under the provisions of Rules, 2008, are also accepting that they are the contract engagee and are being paid honorarium having been appointed under SSA. 15. Thereafter, the State Government has come out with recruitment rule in the year 2012 known as “Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012” wherein 50 % of the vacant and sanctioned posts of teachers in the regular establishment of State Government have been reserved for para teachers after going through the due process of selection meaning thereby the para teachers, who have performed their duties and are eligible to hold the post of Assistant Teacher under the guideline of NCTE, have been made eligible for consideration of their candidature to come in the regular establishment of Assistant Teachers. 16. 16. However, the writ petitioners being aggrieved with the action of the State Government for directly not regularizing their services, rather since have come out with the rule in exercise to power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India by enacting Rules, 2012 wherein though 50 % posts have been reserved for para teachers, have filed these writ petitions for declaring Rule 2012 to be unconstitutional on the ground that no provision of regularization of the para teachers have been made therein. 17. This Court while hearing the matter on 29.11.2022 has come across the decision of the implementing agency-JEPC by which a committee has been constituted on 19.08.2021 comprising four members to prepare and submit a report pertaining to pay-scale and service condition of the para teachers, as would appear from Annexure 1 appended to I.A. No. 5754 of 2022 in W.P. (C) No. 315 of 2016. 18. This Court has confronted with learned State counsel as also learned counsel for the respondents- JEPC as to what is the outcome of the aforesaid decision. 19. Upon this, Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the respondent-JEPC has sought for adjournment and thereby matter has been adjourned to be listed on 30.11.2022. 20. On 30.11.2022, learned counsel for the respondents-JEPC has produced a copy of Resolution No. 237 dated 14.02.2022; the rule enshrined under Article 309 of the Constitution of India notified on 14.04.2022 and the amended Rule notified on 28.09.2022 in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended that the State Government taking into consideration the financial aspect and other facts has come out with a Resolution on 14.02.2022 which was notified vide Notification No. 238 dated 14.04.2022 known as ‘Jharkhand Assistant Teachers Service Condition Rules, 2021’ whereby and whereunder the rule which was in operation prior to coming into effect of said rule i.e. Notification No. 2041 dated 21.08.2008 has been repealed and rules with regard to their service condition has been modified as also honorarium has been enhanced. Therefore, now it cannot be said that the case of the petitioners have not been considered. 21. It is, thus admitted position herein that the writ petitioners have been appointed on contract basis under a Scheme known as ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’. Therefore, now it cannot be said that the case of the petitioners have not been considered. 21. It is, thus admitted position herein that the writ petitioners have been appointed on contract basis under a Scheme known as ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’. Appointments letters were issued and on its perusal it appears that it contains terms and conditions as also about payment of honorarium. The State Government has come out with a notification in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India vide Notification No. 2041 dated 21.08.2008 for regulating the services of the para teachers, wherein para teacher has been defined as under Rule 2(ii) ‘para teacher’ which means that the teachers who have been appointed on contract on fixed honorarium by Village Education Committee under SSA. It further appears that the mode of engagement has been referred as under Rule 3 and 4 which is to be made by conducting combined competitive examination by a duly constituted District Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner comprising four members. Under Rule 7, initially the honorarium was fixed to be paid in favour of one or the other para teachers to the tune of Rs. 5100/- with enhancement of Rs. 500/- on expiry of every three years. Further under Rule 13, provision has been made for disciplinary action which has been empowered to be initiated on recommendation of the Village Education Committee/Panchayat Sammitee/Block Education Extension Officer by Block Level Committee. The aforesaid rule, however, has been superseded by the State Government taking recourse of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by way of Notification No. 238 dated 14.04.2022 wherein the nomenclature of the post has been changed as also the honorarium has been enhanced. 22. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners taking the ground that since the services of the para teachers hereinabove have been regulated by the State by carving out the rule in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the status of the writ petitioners will be of the employee under State Government and as such submitted that they are entitled for regularization in service. The issue of regularization fell for consideration before Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in State of Karnataka Vs. The issue of regularization fell for consideration before Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] and subsequent thereto in State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari [ (2010) 9 SCC 247 ]. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. (supra) while considering this aspect of the matter has come out with the ratio that there cannot be any back door entry since the same amounts to be in the teeth of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, but, however, an exception has been carved out as under paragraph 53 of the aforesaid judgment whereby and whereunder the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold as under: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [ (1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071 ] , R.N. Nanjundappa [ (1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799 ] and B.N. Nagarajan [ (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937 ] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has delved upon the issue in State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. (supra) by dealing with the difference in between the regular employment and illegal employment. It has been clarified that the appointment which has been made not against the sanctioned post will be considered to be illegal appointment, however, appointment made without following the due procedure, i.e., without issuing an advertisement even by the competent authority, such appointments will be said to be irregular appointment and in such circumstances taking into consideration the ratio laid down at paragraph 53 of the judgment rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. (supra), services is required to be regularized. 23. The power of issuance of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction upon the authority fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors Vs. K. Brahmanandam & Ors [ (2008) 5 SCC 241 ] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold taking into consideration the law laid down in the case of Uma Devi (3) that it would not be just or proper to pass order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution or in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India permitting those persons engaged, to be absorbed or to be made permanent, based on their appointments or engagements. Question fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court further in the judgment rendered in Official Liquidator Vs. Question fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court further in the judgment rendered in Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & Ors [ (2008) 10 SCC 1 ] as under paragraph 65 as to whether in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can issue a mandamus and compel the State and its instrumentalities/agencies to regularise the services of temporary/ad hoc/ daily wager/ casual/ contract employees and whether direction can be issued to the public employer to prescribe or give similar pay scales to employees appointed through different modes, with different conditions of service and different sources of payment have become subject-matter of debate and adjudication in several cases. The Hon’ble Apex Court while answering the issue has considered the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and has to come to conclusive finding that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot compel the state machinery by issuing command to regularize the services of temporary/ad hoc/daily wager/casual/contract employees. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the issue of legitimate expectation in the aforesaid judgment in the context that where the government has taken decision to gradually reduce the direct government quota holding that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked for sustaining the directions given by the High Courts for creation of supernumerary posts to facilitate absorption of all company-paid staff with consequential benefits or for nullifying the policy decision taken by the State Government to gradually reduce the direct recruitment quota. It has further been held that the concept of due process of law plays a major role in development of administrative law and as such there must be absence of bias in decision-making process. For ready reference, the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraphs 102, 103 and 104 is quoted hereunder as: “102. The concept of “due process of law” has played a major role in the development of administrative law. It ensures fairness in public administration. The administrative authorities who are entrusted with the task of deciding lis between the parties or adjudicating upon the rights of the individuals are duty-bound to comply with the rules of natural justice, which are multifaceted. The absence of bias in the decision-making process and compliance with audi alteram partem are two of these facets. The administrative authorities who are entrusted with the task of deciding lis between the parties or adjudicating upon the rights of the individuals are duty-bound to comply with the rules of natural justice, which are multifaceted. The absence of bias in the decision-making process and compliance with audi alteram partem are two of these facets. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a nascent addition to the rules of natural justice. It goes beyond statutory rights by serving as another device for rendering justice. At the root of the principle of legitimate expectation is the constitutional principle of rule of law, which requires regularity, predictability and certainty in Government's dealings with the public—J. Raz, The Authority of Law [(1979) Chapter 11]. The “legal certainty” is also a basic principle of European community. European law is based upon the concept of vertrauensschutz (the honouring of a trust or confidence). It is for these reasons that the existence of a legitimate expectation may even in the absence of a right of private law, justify its recognition in public law. 103. In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.), the doctrine of legitimate expectation has been described in the following words: “A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice.” 104. A formal statement on the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be found in the judgment of the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service [ 1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL)]. In that case the Government tried to forbid trade unionism among civil service. For this, the Civil Service Order in the 1982 Council was issued. The Court of Appeal declared that the Minister had acted unlawfully in abridging the fundamental right of a citizen to become a member of the trade union. The House of Lords approved the judgment of the Court of Appeal and held that such a right could not be taken away without consulting the civil servant concerned.” The Hon’ble Apex Court further in the judgment rendered in State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors Vs. The House of Lords approved the judgment of the Court of Appeal and held that such a right could not be taken away without consulting the civil servant concerned.” The Hon’ble Apex Court further in the judgment rendered in State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors Vs. District Bar Association, Bandipora [ (2017) 3 SCC 410 ] has been pleased to hold that there cannot be any direction by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for regularizing them in service for the purpose of regularization of the back entry and held to be not permissible by Hon’ble Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (3). The Hon’ble Apex Court further in the judgment rendered in Union of India & Ors Vs. All India Trade Union Congress and Ors [ (2019) 5 SCC 773 ] has been pleased to hold that about essential condition for entitlement for regularization in service that only long years of service cannot by itself be a ground for regularization. The High Court in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution can do is to direct the Government to consider for framing an appropriate scheme having regard to the facts and circumstances of any case but not beyond it. It is only in an exceptional case where the Court considers it proper to issue appropriate mandatory directions it may do so but not otherwise. Reference in this regard be made to paragraph 15 of the judgment, which reads as under: “15. The High Court failed to see that it is not the function of the courts to frame any scheme but it is the sole prerogative of the Government to do it. All that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, can do is to direct the Government to consider for framing an appropriate scheme having regard to the facts and circumstances of any case which this Court did in Vartak Labour Union (2) [Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union (2), (2011) 4 SCC 200 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 659] but not beyond it. It is only in an exceptional case where the Court considers it proper to issue appropriate mandatory directions it may do so but not otherwise.” It is, thus, evident from perusal of the judgments about the parameters to be exercised by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that there cannot be any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for regularizing the services by issuing command upon the State instrumentalities. The law has already been settled in the case of Uma Devi (3). Admittedly, herein the writ petitioners have been appointed on contract basis, as would appear from their appointment letters issued in favour of one or the other petitioners based upon the scheme known as ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’. The question of their regularization merely because they have rendered long years of service is the main ground of the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners since has accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment which is contractual in nature on the payment of fixed honorarium of Rs. 5100/- with enhancement of Rs.500 on expiry of every three years, according to considered view of this Court there cannot be any direction for their regularization for the following reasons: (a). Admittedly, the writ petitioners have been appointed under a scheme floated by the Central Government in collaboration with State Government, financial burden of which is being borne by the Centre and State at present in the ratio of 60:40. The purpose to launch scheme is to universalize the elementary education across the country and for that purpose para teachers have been decided to be engaged on contract basis to impart education to the children in the age group of 6 to 14 years. Since the basic feature of the scheme is to universalize the elementary education under the scheme under which the writ petitioners have been appointed as para teachers and they have accepted the terms and conditions of appointment as also honorarium which they have started to receive and same is being received by them. Since the basic feature of the scheme is to universalize the elementary education under the scheme under which the writ petitioners have been appointed as para teachers and they have accepted the terms and conditions of appointment as also honorarium which they have started to receive and same is being received by them. Since the writ petitioners have been appointed on contract under a scheme and as such no legal vested right has been conferred to the writ petitioner to stake claim for regularization of their services in view of the position of law having been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors Vs. K. Brahmanandam & Ors (supra) that there cannot be command by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction upon the State instrumentalities for their regularization. (b). The writ petitioners also cannot be regularized for the reason that they are not subjected to the recruitment process which is being subjected to the regular Assistant Teachers at the time of fulfilling the permanent vacancies of the cadre rather the petitioners are being appointed at Panchayat Level or Block Level by Village Education Committee and candidate is being called for the local area and as such they are not being subjected to the due recruitment process. Hence, on this ground also they cannot be regularized in service. (c). The parameter has been fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (3) as under paragraph 53 thereof stipulating the condition of regularization and the condition that the appointment must be made against the sanctioned post but it is admitted case that the writ petitioners are not appointed against sanctioned post, rather they are the contractual engagee under a scheme. Once an appointee is appointed under a scheme there is no question of considering them to be appointed against the sanctioned post and thereby they are not fulfilling the criteria fixed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (3) (supra). Once an appointee is appointed under a scheme there is no question of considering them to be appointed against the sanctioned post and thereby they are not fulfilling the criteria fixed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (3) (supra). Further reason is that there is non-observance of mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India since there is no wide inviting applications to all concerned who are eligible to be considered and if ignoring such candidates the services of the writ petitioners will be regularized the other candidates will be subjected to discrimination and a fair chance to participate in the process of selection. The scheme (SSA) since is under joint collaboration of Centre and State and financial burden is being borne to the extent of 60:40 and in that view of the matter also there cannot be direction by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for their regularization of their services on the ground of financial constraint as taken by the State. In this regard, the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors. [ (2018) 13 SCC 560 ] is required to be referred wherein the issue fell for consideration seeking regularization of teachers who are being appointed under SSA has been negated and the version of the High Court has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relevant paragraph of which is quoted as under: “29. Further difficulty which stares one in the face is the law laid down by this Court on regularisation of contractually appointed persons in public employment. Appointment of Shiksha Mitras was not only contractual, it was not as per qualification prescribed for a teacher nor on designation of teacher nor in pay scale of teachers. Thus, they could not be regularised as teachers. Regularisation could only be of mere irregularity. The exceptions carved out by this Court do not apply to the case of the present nature.” This Court on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning coupled with the judicial pronouncements, as referred above, is of the view that the writ petitioners are not entitled for regularization in service. Issue no. I is decided accordingly. 24. So far Issue No. (II). Issue no. I is decided accordingly. 24. So far Issue No. (II). - To at least pay the para teachers at par with the regular assistant Teachers on the principle of equal pay for equal work – is concerned, it has been contended on behalf writ petitioners that since petitioners-para teachers are performing similar nature of duties as of regular Assistant teachers and as such they are required to be given pay at par with the regular assistant teachers. There is no doubt that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is although not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal but while considering the question of applicability of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ it has to be considered that the State is having power to classify the employee on the basis of qualification, duties and responsibilities of the posts and the mode of recruitment. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in administration, the State would be justified in prescribing different pay-scales but if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable nexus and the classification is founded on unreal, unreasonable basis it would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mewa Ram Kanojia Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors [ (1989) 2 SCC 235 ], wherein at paragraph 5 and 7 it has been held has under: 5. While considering the question of application of principle of “Equal pay for equal work” it has to be borne in mind that it is open to the State to classify employees on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in the administration, the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scale but if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable nexus and the classification is founded on unreal, and unreasonable basis it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equality must be among the equals. Unequal cannot claim equality. 7. Even assuming that the petitioner performs similar duties and functions as those performed by an Audiologist, it is not sufficient to uphold his claim for equal pay. Equality must be among the equals. Unequal cannot claim equality. 7. Even assuming that the petitioner performs similar duties and functions as those performed by an Audiologist, it is not sufficient to uphold his claim for equal pay. As already observed, in judging the equality of work for the purposes of equal pay, regard must be had not only to the duties and functions but also to the educational qualifications, qualitative difference and the measures of responsibility prescribed for the respective posts. Even if the duties and functions are of similar nature but if the educational qualifications prescribed for the two posts are different and there is difference in measure of responsibilities, the principle of “Equal pay for equal work” would not apply. Under the relevant Rules framed by the Institute qualifications for the two class of posts, namely, Audiologist and Hearing Therapist are as under: Audiologist Qualifications Essential Hearing Therapist Qualifications Essential 1 2 1. A graduate in Science/Arts or Medicines, from a recognised University. 2. Master's degree in Audiology or Otolaryngology from a recognised Institution/University. 3. Three years teaching/research experience in the field of Audiology. Desirable 1. Ph.D. in Audiology from a recognised University. 2. Practical experience of working in a Speech and Hearing Rehabilitation Centre. 3. Journalistic or literary activity in relation to Audiology. 1. A graduate in Science or Arts of a recognised University in India or abroad. 2. Trained teacher for the deaf, such as Certified Teacher for Deaf (C.T.D… Dip) 3. Teaching experience at a recognised school for the deaf in India for not less than three years. A perusal of the above chart would show that different educational qualifications are prescribed for the two posts. For an Audiologist a Master's Degree in Otolaryngology or Audiology is an essential qualification but no such Master's Degree is prescribed for Hearing Therapist instead a diploma as Certified Teacher for Deaf is the essential qualification for the said post. A comparison of the qualifications prescribed for the two posts clearly indicates that higher qualification is prescribed for the post of Audiologist. There appears to be qualitative difference in the responsibilities of the two posts as an Audiologist possesses higher qualification. If is therefore manifest that on the basis of educational qualifications two posts cannot be equated. A comparison of the qualifications prescribed for the two posts clearly indicates that higher qualification is prescribed for the post of Audiologist. There appears to be qualitative difference in the responsibilities of the two posts as an Audiologist possesses higher qualification. If is therefore manifest that on the basis of educational qualifications two posts cannot be equated. Even if the functions and duties of two posts are similar it is open to the State to prescribe different scales of pay on the basis of difference in educational qualifications. Different treatment to persons belonging to the same class is a permissible classification on the basis of educational qualifications. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Shyam Babu Verma & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors [ (1994) 2 SCC 521 ] has been pleased to hold that the nature of work may be more or less the same but scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ should not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner. Classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate the classification made to be unreasonable. Reference in this regard be made to paragraph 9, which reads as under: “9. It was then urged on behalf of the petitioners that on principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ they were entitled to pay scale of Rs 330-560. It was pointed out that they have been performing the same nature of work, which was being performed by other Pharmacists Grade-B who have been given the scale of Rs 330-560. The nature of work may be more or less the same but scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ should not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner. Classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate the classification made to be unreasonable. Inequality of the men in different groups excludes applicability of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ to them. Classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate the classification made to be unreasonable. Inequality of the men in different groups excludes applicability of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ to them. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has been examined in State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiya [ (1993) 1 SCC 539 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 221 : (1993) 23 ATC 657] by this Court. Before any direction is issued by the Court, the claimants have to establish that there was no reasonable basis to treat them separately in matters of payment of wages or salary. Then only it can be held that there has been a discrimination, within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, at paragraph 22 of the judgment rendered in M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officer Assn. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. [ (2004) 4 SCC 646 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court has pleased to hold that the valid classification based on educational qualification for the purpose of grant of pay has been upheld by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Mysore & Anr. Vs. P. Narasinga Rao [ (1968) 1 SCR 407 ]. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited & Anr. Vs. Balbir Kumar Walia & Ors [ (2021) 8 SCC 784 ], in which, the judgment rendered in S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279 has been referred while examining the question of applicability of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has held that fixation of payscale is a delicate mechanism which requires various considerations including financial capacity, responsibility, educational qualification, mode of appointment, etc. For ready reference, paragraph 28 of the judgment reads as under: 28. This Court in a judgment reported as S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897] was examining the question of equal pay for equal work where the claim of the appellants was to release and pay dearness allowance. This Court in a judgment reported as S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897] was examining the question of equal pay for equal work where the claim of the appellants was to release and pay dearness allowance. Hon'ble Markandey Katju, J. in a separate but concurring judgment held that the “Fixation of pay scale is a delicate mechanism which requires various considerations including financial capacity, responsibility, educational qualification, mode of appointment, etc. …” (SCC p. 290, para 26). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors [ (2017) 1 SCC 148 ], has pleased to hold that the application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is whether the employees concerned (before this Court) were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees holding the same/corresponding posts. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has given much emphasis upon the judgment rendered in State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors (supra) in order to fortify his argument that strengthening the claim of application of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. But it is settled proposition of law that the applicability of the judgment depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case and there cannot be any universal application of the judgment rather each judgment is to be decided on the basis of fact of each case, as has been held in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75 , in particular at paragraph 47, which reads as under: “47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.” The factual aspect leading to the case of State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors (supra) pertains to extending the benefit of ‘equal pay for equal work’ in favour of the temporary employees. There is no dispute that the temporary employees are always under the regular establishment of the State Government as also is the condition of the daily wages employees, ad hoc employees, employees appointed on contractual basis and contractual employees. But by going through the factual aspect involved in the said case, it appears that it was not the case of the contractual engagement under the scheme. The moment appointment is being made under scheme the nature of appointment will depend upon terms and conditions of the scheme and the length of such appointment depends upon its durability. Herein, in the instant case, the writ petitioners admittedly have been appointed on contract basis under SSA on the basis of fixed honorarium to be paid along with enhancement of Rs.500/- on expiry of every three years. Therefore, they admittedly are not under the establishment of the State Government rather are appointed under the scheme and are not engaged against the sanctioned vacancy. In the state of Jharkhand, as has been informed, the number of sanctioned vacancies is much less in number in comparison to that of contract engagee under SSA by way of para teachers, as per definition of para teachers defined under Rule 2(ii) of Rules, 2008. The object of the SSA is to impart education to the children between the age group of 6 to 14 years and to that extent there cannot be an expectation for creation of post to such a large scale since the same will depend upon the financial capacity of one or the other State Government and that is the reason under the scheme provision has been made for appointment on contract basis on honorarium to be paid to one or the other para teachers. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ as per the legal position as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred hereinabove depends upon financial capacity, responsibility, educational qualification, mode of appointment. The contention of the writ petitioner that they are having the educational qualification at par with the regular assistant teachers and also performing responsibility as is being performed by the regular assistant teacher working under the regular establishment of the State Government and as such on these counts they are entitled for ‘equal pay for equal work’. This Court is not in agreement with such submission for the reason that apart from responsibility, educational qualification other condition i.e., financial capacity and mode of appointment are also required to be seen. The issue of financial capacity has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors Vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has declined to pass positive direction for ‘equal pay for equal work’ rather left it open to the State by way of suggestion to take remedial measure at paragraph 107, which reads as under: “107. At the same time, the submission that at the initial stage the Niyojit Teachers are given such emoluments which are lesser than peons and clerks in the same school, is a matter which requires attention. It is true that after having put in two years of service, the emoluments made available to Niyojit Teachers show some improvements but the disparity at the initial stage is more than evident. The State may certainly be entitled to devise a pay structure for Niyojit Teachers and the courts may not interfere in policy matters but, if there is an imbalance of the nature as presented before this Court, the matter raises concern. The teachers must be entitled to decent emoluments. In the chart referred to in para 54(C) above, after two years of service with proposed enhancement as per recommendations of the Three-member Committee the scales payable to Niyojit Teachers would show some increase as against those in respect of peons and clerks. The State may consider raising the scales of Niyojit Teachers at least to the level suggested by the Committee, without insisting on any test or examination advised by the Committee. Those who clear such test or examination, may be given even better scales. The State may consider raising the scales of Niyojit Teachers at least to the level suggested by the Committee, without insisting on any test or examination advised by the Committee. Those who clear such test or examination, may be given even better scales. This is only a suggestion which may be considered by the State.” Herein, in the instant case, the State has taken plea of having no such financial capacity to sanction the post and absorb them in service. The issue of financial capacity since has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of referred hereinabove and same having been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court by refusing to pass any positive direction in favour of the appellants of the said case, therefore, according to our considered view also the issue of financial capacity will be foremost restraintment in commanding the State instrumentalities for ‘equal pay for equal work’. The mode of appointment is also required to be considered for extending the benefit of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The fact, which is in dispute, is that the appointment of regular assistant teachers, made under the permanent establishment, being a State Cadre is being made by the State authority resorting to Article 16 to the Constitution of India i.e. by way of wide publication of advertisement for the purpose of inviting applications from all eligible candidates and by conducting written examination followed by viva voce, if required. Their recruitments are made at the State/District level. But in the case of para teachers, as would appear from the notification issued in the year 2008 or the subsequent one, the mode of recruitment has been given considering the para teachers to the Village or panchayat or block level and their recruitment is being made by constituting a committee i.e., Village Education Committee/School Management Committee. But in the case of para teachers, as would appear from the notification issued in the year 2008 or the subsequent one, the mode of recruitment has been given considering the para teachers to the Village or panchayat or block level and their recruitment is being made by constituting a committee i.e., Village Education Committee/School Management Committee. For ready reference, the relevant provision of rule is being reproduced hereinbelow: 3- fu;kstu%& fu;e 2 ¼1½ esa mYysf[kr fo|ky; gsrq loZ f'k{kk vfHk;ku ds rgr~ Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr ekin.M ds vuq:i ftyk esa ftrus lkeqnkf;d f'k{kdksa dh vko';drk gS] mldk okLrfod vkdyu loZ f'k{kk vfHk;ku ds ftyk dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr }kjk inksa dks fpfUgr fd;k tk;sxk rFkk bu inksa ij fu;kstu gsrq tyk Lrjh; lfefr }kjk fu;e 2 (ii) esa mYysf[kr ikjk f'k{kdksa gsrq lhfer izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk dk vk;kstu fd;k tk;sxkA lekpkj i=ksa esa foKfIr izdkf'kr dj fuEu vgÙkkZ/kkjh ls vkosnu i= vkeaf=r fd;s tk;saxs%& ¼d½ tks fu;e 2 (ii) esa mYysf[kr >kj[k.M jkT; ds lacaf/kr ftyk esa ikjk f'k{kd ds :i esa 5 ¼ik¡p½ o"kksZa dh vVwV lsok fd;s gksa] mlh ftyk ds izdkf'kr foKfIr ds vuq:i inksa ds fo:) lkeqnkf;d f'k{kd ds in ij vkosnu ns ldrs gSaA vFkkZr~ ,d ftyk esa 5 o"kksZa dh vVwV lsok djus okys ikjk f'k{kd nwljs ftyk esa lkeqnkf;d f'k{kd in ds fo:) vkosnu ugha ns ldrs gSaA vVwV lsok dh x.kuk foKfIr izdkf'kr gksusokyh o"kZ dh igyh tqykbZ dks dh tk;sxhA ¼[k½ tks ekU;rk izkIr mPprj ek/;fed ¼$2½ ijh{kk izek.k i= vFkok mlds led{k ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ gksA ¼x½ tks fu;e 2 ¼2½ esa mYysf[kr izf'k{k.k izkIr fd;s gkasA ¼?k½ ftl iapkax o"kZ esa foKkiu fudkyk tk;sxk] ml o"kZ dh igyh tqykbZ dks mEehnokj dk U;wure vk;q >kj[k.M ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr vk;q lhek ds vUrxZr gksxh rFkk vf/kdre vk;q 55 o"kZ ls T;knk ugha gksxhA ijUrq ,sls lkeqnkf;d f'k{kd dh lsok vf/kdre 60 o"kZ dh gh vk;q rd yh tk;sxhA 4- ijh{kk dk vk;kstu& ¼d½ lhfer izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk dk vk;kstu lacaf/kr ftyk ds ftyk Lrjh; lfefr }kjk fd;k tk;sxk tks fuEu :is.k xfBr gksxh%& 1- mik;qDr & v/;{k 2- mi&fodkl vk;qDr & mik/;{k 3- ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh & lnL; 4- ftyk dY;k.k inkf/kdkjh & lnL; 5- ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd & lnL; lfpo It is, thus, evident that the para teachers are being appointed in a different mode and without resorting to the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India in the sense that there is no wide publication of notice inviting applications as also as would appear from Rule (Ka) of the Rules, 2008 the candidates are to make application for a particular district as also without going through the large competition for the assessment of the merit of one of the other candidates and in that view of the matter, as per the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would not be applied. 25. This Court as per the discussions made herein above is of the view that the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue direction upon the State to extend the benefit to the writ petitioners for granting ‘equal pay for equal work’. 26. Accordingly, issue II is decided against the petitioners. 27. Issue No. (III).This issue pertains to - Whether the writ petitioners who are working as para-teachers, in alternative, are entitled to get minimum of pay-scale?. This Court before entering into the issue requires to refer herein that the writ petitioners have tried to impress upon the Court first for regularization of their services and in case of no regularization then payment on the basis of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and if same is being denied then at least to pay the minimum of pay-scale. Thus, the writ petitioners are before this Court for one or other prayer and not for specific prayer. The issue of minimum of pay-scale whether the petitioners are entitled for the same or not is required to be considered on the basis of its principle of its applicability 28. The issue of minimum of pay-scale fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors Vs. Putti Lal [ (2006) 9 SCC 337 ]. The daily wages earner in the forest department in the State of Uttar Pradesh approached the High Court for regularization of their service, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court directed the State Government to constitute a committee in order to frame a scheme for regularization. The judgment of the High Court that the daily wages worker shall be paid on the minimum of payscale was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It has further been held that the daily wager would be entitled for minimum of pay scale as received by their counter-part in government and would not be entitled for any allowances, increment so long as they continue as daily wagers. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra) has considered to pay minimum of pay scale to the temporary employees. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra) has considered to pay minimum of pay scale to the temporary employees. Thus, the position of law that if the employees are working and are being denied regularization at least minimum of pay scale is to be paid here the fact of the Putti lal case relates to daily wages earner in the forest department of the State of Uttar Pradesh while in the Jagjit Singh case the consideration has been given by Hon’ble Apex Court in a case where employees are working on temporary basis under the establishment of the State Government. As has been referred hereinabove that the judgment is to be tested on the basis of fact governing the case, as per the law settled in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (supra) and observing the same this Court is of the view that here the facts of the instant case is not as involved either in the case of Putti Lal Case or Jagjit Singh Case rather here the case is of contractual engagees, who have been appointed as para teachers under a scheme known as SSA and are being paid from the fund generated in collaboration of Centre and State in the ratio of 60:40. The issue of financial capacity, being the foremost criteria, is purely under the domain of the State Government to take such decision depending on its financial capacity. Since the issue of financial capacity is in way as such it will not be proper for the High Court to command the State instrumentalities in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant such relief. Since herein the writ petitioner has accepted the offer of appointment, which has been made on contract on payment of honorarium and are being governed with their own rules carved out in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, therefore, once having accepted the terms of the contract and rendered their services they cannot turn around and claim parity to get minimum of pay-scale. Since the writ petitioners are the engagee on contract basis depending upon the contract and as such on that count also there cannot be direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India otherwise the same will amount to re-writing the contract, which is not permission in law. Reference, in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd. & Ors [ (2003) 11 SCC 465 ] wherein at paragraph 29, it has been held as under: “29. As is evident, the appellants have sought to exercise their statutory power and not a contractual obligation. Reliance placed in this behalf by Mr Ray on State of Orissa v. Narain Prasad [ (1996) 5 SCC 740 ] is not apposite in the fact situation obtaining herein. The respondents therein were the highest bidders in respect of the various liquor shops in Orissa. Their bids were accepted. They executed agreements in the prescribed form and were issued licences. Each of them had undertaken under the agreement/contract to lift a particular specified quantity of liquor every month. They carried on their business in terms of the licences but failed to lift the agreed minimum guaranteed quantity and further failed to remit the excise duty as provided under Rule 6-A. It was, in that situation, this Court observed: (SCC p. 752, para 21) “A person who enters into certain contractual obligations with his eyes open and works the entire contract, cannot be allowed to turn around, according to this decision, and question the validity of those obligations or the validity of the Rules which constitute the terms of the contract. The extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, which is of a discretionary nature and is exercised only to advance the interests of justice, cannot certainly be employed in aid of such persons. Neither justice nor equity is in their favour.” Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Sidc Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R. Varaprasad & Ors [(2003) 11 SC 572] at paragraph 12 been held as under: “12. Neither justice nor equity is in their favour.” Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Sidc Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R. Varaprasad & Ors [(2003) 11 SC 572] at paragraph 12 been held as under: “12. This being the position both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were not right in taking a contrary view that the benefits available under the Scheme and terminal benefits should be reckoned and calculated as on the date of actual relieving of the employees notwithstanding the cut-off date mentioned by the Corporation and accepted by the employees. An employee even after accepting his application could not be relieved unless the entire amount to which he was entitled under the Scheme was paid. Such payment depended on making funds available by the State Government. All employees who accepted VRS could be relieved at a time or batch by batch depending on availability of funds. Further funds may be made available early or late. If the argument of the respondents that relieving date should be taken as effective date for calculating terminal benefits and financial package under VRS, the dates may be fluctuating depending on availability of funds. Hence it is not possible to accept this argument. When the employees have opted for VRS on their own without any compulsion knowing fully well about the Scheme, guidelines and circulars governing the same, it is not open to them to make any claim contrary to the terms accepted. It is a matter of contract between the Corporation and the employees. It is not for the courts to rewrite the terms of the contract, which were clear to the contracting parties, as indicated in the guidelines and circulars governing them under which Voluntary Retirement Schemes floated.” (Emphasis Supplied) 29. This Court on the basis of discussions made hereinabove is of the view that the writ petitioners are also not entitled for minimum of pay-scale. 30. Issue no. III is answered against the petitioner accordingly. 31. In the result, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. 32. Consequent upon disposal of the writ petitions, the pending Interlocutory Application(s) stands disposed of.