JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.09.2020, passed in CWPOA No. 324 of 2019, titled as Pawan Kumar Vs. State of HP & others, whereby action of the appellant- State classifying between the PTA Teachers serving in rural areas vis-à-vis PTA Teachers serving in Municipal Corporations, Municipal Committees and Nagar Panchayats of the State, has been held to be discriminatory and, accordingly, the action of the State whereby Grant in Aid to PTA Teachers serving in urban area was declared inadmissible vide communication dated 27.08.2007 (Annexure P-1), has been quashed. 2. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as record of the case. 3. The appellant/State has formulated and implemented Grant-in-Aid to Parent Teacher Association Rules, 2006 for providing grant-in-aid to the PTA Teachers serving in all schools of the State of Himachal Pradesh. However, vide communication dated 27.08.2007 benefit thereof was declared inadmissible to the PTA Teachers serving in the schools situated in the area of Municipal Corporations, Municipal Committees and Nagar Panchayat of the State on the basis of location of the schools. 4. The Grant-in-aid is paid to the Teachers and not to the schools and the PTA Teachers are appointed for inaction/omission on the part of the appellant/ State by not appointing regular Teachers, which are necessarily required for imparting education to the students studying in various schools situated in rural as well as urban areas. It is the omission on the part of the State, which compel the PTAs to appoint PTA teachers and Grant-in-aid has been provided to the PTA Teachers and, therefore, validity of classification, if any, is to be determined with respect to the Teachers and not with respect to the schools or on the basis of location of schools. 5. As a matter of fact, despite repeated directions by the Courts to the State to provide regular Teachers in the schools, appellant/State, irrespective of persons in power, has failed to follow the directions and to recruit/appoint regular Teachers well in time by taking steps before the occurrence vacancies in the schools. In compelling circumstances, PTAs are constrained to engage Teacher(s) to save the future of children by making arrangements to impart education to them by resorting to appointments on PTA basis. 6. In compelling circumstances, PTAs are constrained to engage Teacher(s) to save the future of children by making arrangements to impart education to them by resorting to appointments on PTA basis. 6. Perhaps, in order to avoid responsibility of granting service benefits available to the regular Teachers, the appellant-State adheres to policy(ies) to appoint teachers adopting temporary/adhoc arrangements. In fact, by issuing communication dated 27.08.2007 again appellant-State is trying to save money by sucking blood of poor helpless unemployed youth compelled to accept any term imposed upon them on seeing a ray of hope for chance to earn something not for dignified livelihood but for survival. 7. “PTA Teachers” serving in rural areas or urban areas are one of the same class and the classification amongst them for the purpose of Grant-in-aid on the basis of location of the school is not intelligible classification because PTA Teachers appointments have been permitted in all schools for common reason of non-availability of teacher for non-appointment of Teacher by the State/Department in order to protect the interest of students/ children whether studying in urban/ municipal area or rural area. Therefore, classification created by communication dated 27.08.2007 does not pass the twin test propounded in numerous pronouncements of the Court required to be adjudged for such different treatment to the PTA Teachers in reference. There is no intelligible differentiation between PTA Teachers serving in municipal and rural area and there is no nexus between classification of urban and rural PTA Teachers and object to be achieved by the PTA policy providing Grant-in-Aid. 8. PTA Teachers in urban as well as rural areas are appointed for identical reasons i.e. failure on the part of Department of State to provide regular teachers. They perform identical job with equal degree of accountability and responsibility. Therefore for appointment to identical post enjoined with the same degree of accountability there is no qualitative difference in work, responsibility and nature of job of PTA Teachers working in rural area and PTA Teachers working in Urban area. They have to perform the same duties and functions. Urban and rural PTA Teachers are one and the same class. Therefore being a one and the same class all PTA Teachers are entitled for the same treatment with same salary/ Grant-in-Aid. 9. They have to perform the same duties and functions. Urban and rural PTA Teachers are one and the same class. Therefore being a one and the same class all PTA Teachers are entitled for the same treatment with same salary/ Grant-in-Aid. 9. Though, as provided in Article 37 of the Constitution, Directive Principles contained in Part-IV of the Constitution are not enforceable by any Court, however, they are fundamentals in the governance of the country and it is duty of the State to apply these principles in making Law. 10. Article 39 (d) directs that the State shall direct its policies towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Article 39 (d) read with Articles 14 and 16 envisages that irrational classification amongst equals is not permissible and such classification is violative of mandate of the Constitution and deserves to be interfered with by this Court. 11. Therefore, classification of PTA Teachers, for payment or denial of Grant-in-Aid, on the basis of location of school is impermissible under the Law being irrational, unintelligible and incomprehensible. Such discrimination is one more example of exploitative policies formulated and adopted by the State in order to avoid its responsibility to provide Teachers in its schools by paying salary to them for which they are entitled like others. 12. Therefore, communication dated 27.08.2007 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the mandate of Constitution of India especially Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. In this regard, reference to the judgment dated 18.08.2020 authored by one of us (Justice Sandeep Sharma, J) passed in CWPOA No. 4544 of 2019 titled as Joginder Singh and State of HP and others is also relevant wherein referring pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Deepak Sibbal Vs. Punjab University reported in (1989) 2 SCC 145 ; and S. Seshachalam and Others Vs. Chairman Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 72 , similar view has been taken and communication dated 27.08.2007 has been quashed and set aside. Reasons assigned therein are also relevant and are mutatis mutandis applicable in present case also. 14. Chairman Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 72 , similar view has been taken and communication dated 27.08.2007 has been quashed and set aside. Reasons assigned therein are also relevant and are mutatis mutandis applicable in present case also. 14. At this stage, it is also apt to record here that appellants/ State is not able to dispute the fact that benefit of Grant-in-aid has already been extended to the various Government/ 95% aided private schools/colleges situated in urban area and, thus, withdrawal of such Grant-in-aid to the PTA Teachers engaged in schools situated in the urban/ municipal area is not sustainable being unjustified and discriminatory in nature. 15. In view of above discussion, we find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgment assailed in this appeal rather we are in agreement to reasons assigned by learned single Judge and we reiterate that communication dated 27.08.2007 has rightly been quashed by learned Single Judge. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits, so also pending applications, if any.