JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. Case of the petitioners. 1. The aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common Judgment & Order. The petitioners of all the writ petitions are aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2022 more particularly, Annexure-6 of the WP(C) No. 7/2025 (similar order annexed with the other writ petitions). It is submitted that all the petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc basis as Primary/Graduate Teachers on fixed pay against SSA vacancy sanctioned posts and are presently serving at various Government Primary/Middle/High/Higher Secondary Schools under the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima. Initially, the petitioners were appointed for a period for six months/one year but their services were extended from time to time and they are still serving as Primary/Graduate Teachers. 2. Vide Notification dated 02.09.2022, the Department of School Education notified mainstreaming of 2290 educationally and professionally qualified teachers as per NCTE norms appointed under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) and Rastriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) of 2010 & 2013 batches into the State Education Cadre. As the petitioners were appointed against SSA sanctioned posts, they submitted representations to the respondents praying for mainstreaming of their services into the State School Education cadre and also for grant of regular Scale of pay. Vide Letter No. DSE/SSA/ESTT/4-11/2022/613 dated Kohima the 30 th of November, 2022 the representation for main streaming and ‘Scale of Pay’ by the petitioners was not considered and thereby rejected. The aforementioned letter is extracted herein below verbatim :- (Page 125 Annexure-25 of WP(C) No. 45/2023) “To, 1. Shri. Pankathung Ezung, President Nagaland Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Adhoc Trained Teachers Association 2. Smt. Tolika 1. Zhimomi, Secretary Nagaland Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Adhoc Trained Teachers Association Sub: Mainstreaming and Scale of Pay-regarding. Madam/Sir, With reference to your letter No. NIL dated 10 October 2022, I am directed to convey regret on your request for mainstreaming into the State School Education Cadre as the condition in your appointment letter states that "does not confer any right to claim regularization" and scale of pay cannot be granted as your pay and allowances is drawn against SSA fund (CSS) depending on the norms of Government of India.” 3. Aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment by the respondent authorities, the petitioners are before this Court as their counter parts SSA/RMSA Teachers were mainstreamed into the State Education Cadre. 4. Aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment by the respondent authorities, the petitioners are before this Court as their counter parts SSA/RMSA Teachers were mainstreamed into the State Education Cadre. 4. The petitioners were appointed by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, and as per the terms and conditions of their appointments the petitioners were to undergo Pre-service Teacher Education (PSTE) course/Bachelor of Education (B.ed) training. The petitioners have successfully acquired the requisite qualification within the stipulated period of time. 5. Vide OM No. ED/EL/WKA/5/10-1 dated 27.01.2015 the fixed pay of Primary and Graduate Teachers were enhanced to Rs. 20,080/- and Rs. 27,400/- respectively, with immediate effect, but some of the Primary/Graduate Teachers were not accorded the enhanced fixed pay in terms of the OM dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure 233 of WPC 45/2023) and they approached this Court by way of writ petition. Thereafter, the Department of School Education, vide Notification dated 02.09.2022, notified mainstreaming of 2290 Educationally & Professionally qualified teachers as per NCETE norms appointed under the erstwhile Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) and Rastriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) of 2010 & 2013 batched into the School Education Cadre w.e.f. 21.04.2022 (Notification No. DSE/SSA-RMSA/COM/S18/86/2021) dated 02.09.2022. 6. All the petitioners were appointed as teachers by the respondent authorities and the date of appointment and post to which they were appointed are summarised hereinbelow :- 6.1 {WP (C) no.7/ 2023} The petitioner Smti Kethono Savino was appointed as primary teacher vide Order dated 11.02.2011. 6.2. (WP (C) no.45/ 2023) The petitioner Sri Pankathung Ezung and others except petitioner nos.10, 15, 18 and 19 were appointed as Primary Teachers whereas petitioner nos.10, 15, 18 and 19 were appointed as Graduate teachers, respectively vide Orders dated 04.02.2015, 03.08.2015, 18.02.2015, 04.08.2015, 17.03.2015, 16.08.2015, 13.03.2015, 10.01.2013, 04.09.09.2015 and 22.04.2015, issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad- hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.3. {WP (C) no.46/ 2023} The petitioners Sri Mughaka Yepthomi and others except petitioners nos.9,12, 15, 20 and 22 were appointed as Primary teachers while petitioner nos. 9,12, 15, 20 and 22 were appointed as Graduate teachers by Orders dated 06.04.2016, 06.07.2015, 29.07/2015, 06.07.2011, 08.08.2011, 30.09.2015, 29.04.2016, 27.07.2015, 24.06.2015, 09.12.2014, 25.06.2012, 18.06.2015, 07.07.2015, 14.09.2015, 15.07.2019, 22.09.2014 and 19.08.2015 issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad- hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.4. {WP (C) no.47/ 2023} The petitioners Sri Khongwang Konyak and others of WP (C) no.47/ 2023 except petitioners nos. 6.4. {WP (C) no.47/ 2023} The petitioners Sri Khongwang Konyak and others of WP (C) no.47/ 2023 except petitioners nos. 5, 6, 7, 10 and 16 were appointed as Primary teachers whereas the petitioners nos. 5, 6, 7, 10 and 16 were appointed as Graduate teachers by Orders dated 27.08.2015, 06.06.2016, 31.08.2015, 20.01.2015, 01.06.2016, 18.06.2015, 21.04.2015,07.11.2015, 03.09.2015 and 09.01.2015 issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad- hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.5 {WP (C) no.48/ 2023} The petitioners Smti Wanenya Magh and 2 others were appointed as Primary teachers vide Orders dated 07.07.2015, 11.12.2015 and 15.01.2015 respectively issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad- hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.6 {WP (C) no.51/ 2023} The petitioners Sri H. Kokhangba Chang and 46 others of WP (C) no.51/2023 were appointed as Primary teachers vide Orders dated 12.03.2015, 30.09.2015, 03.08.2015 and 20.08.2015 issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad- hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.7 {WP (C) no.52/ 2023} The petitioners Smti Hennyei and 6 others of WP (C) no.52/ 2023 except petitioner nos. 3, 4 were appointed as Primary teachers whereas petitioner nos. 3, 4 were appointed as Grqaduate teachers vide Orders dated 02.07.2015, 07.07.2015, 24.06.2015, 21.06.2015, 19.04.2016, 02.07.2015 and 11.02.2015 respectively issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad- hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.8. {WP (C) no.53/ 2023} The petitioners Sri Kihomong Yimchunger and others of WP (C) no.53/2023 were appointed as Primary teachers whereas petitioner no.4 was appointed as Graduate teachers vide Orders dated 05.02.2016, 31.02.2016, 14.04.2016 and 30.09.2016 respectively issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad- hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.9 {WP (C) no.54/ 2023} The petitioners Smti Lhingboi Hangsing of WP (C) no.54/ 2023 and petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 22, were appointed as Primary teachers whereas petitioner nos. 6, 7, 11, 18, 19 were appointed as Graduate teachers vide Orders dated 18.06.2015, 27.01.2015, 29.07.2016, 15.01.2015, 14.10.2015, 11.08.2015, 28.10.2015, 20.04.2015, 16.11.2015, 04.12.2015, 30.09.2015, 20.02.2015, 26.02.2015 and 13.08.2015 respectively issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad- hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.10. Out of 22 petitioners in WP (C) no. 6, 7, 11, 18, 19 were appointed as Graduate teachers vide Orders dated 18.06.2015, 27.01.2015, 29.07.2016, 15.01.2015, 14.10.2015, 11.08.2015, 28.10.2015, 20.04.2015, 16.11.2015, 04.12.2015, 30.09.2015, 20.02.2015, 26.02.2015 and 13.08.2015 respectively issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad- hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.10. Out of 22 petitioners in WP (C) no. 55/2013, the petitioner nos., 13, 14 and 19 were appointed as Graduate teachers whereas other petitioners were appointed as Primary teachers vide Orders dated 18.08.2015, 03.08.2015, 27.07.2015, 22.09.2015, 11.08,.2015, 05.02.2015, 27.07.2015, 04.03.2016, 07.07.2014, 11.08.2015, 24.09.2015, 13.06.2011, 23.06.2015, 13.08.2015, 08.01.2015, 21.09.2015, 10.02.2015, 09.12.2014 and 22.07.2015 respectively issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad- hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.11. Out of 15 petitioners in WP(C) no. 56/2023, petitioner nos. 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14 and 15 were appointed as Primary teachers and the remaining petitioners were appointed as Graduate teachers vide orders dated 18.06.2015, 20.07.2015, 29.07.2016, 15.01.2015, 14.10.2015, 11.08.2015, 28.10.2015, 20.04.2015, 16.11.2015, 04.12.2015, 30.09.2015, 20.02.2015, 26.02.2015, 13.08.2015 issued by the by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad- hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.12. Out of 10 petitioners of WP(C)/61/2023, petitioner no. 4, Smti Akali I.Swu was appointed as Graduate Teacher vide Order dated 14.06.2016, whereas the other remaining petitioners were appointed as Primary Teachers by Orders dated 11.08.2015, 12.02.2014, 16.05.2016, 17.06.2014, 14.10.2015, 27.10.2015, 13.08.2015 and 27.01.2016 issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad-hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.13. Out of 6 petitioners of WP(C)/62/2023, petitioner no. 3, Smti Relishi Mary was appointed as Graduate Teacher vide Order dated 14.04.2016, whereas the other remaining petitioners were appointed as Primary Teachers by Orders dated 30.09.2015, 12.09.2013, and 05.02.2016 respectively issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad-hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.14. Out of 22 petitioners of WP(C)/63/2023, petitioner nos. 2, 5, 8, and 16 were appointed as Graduate Teachers, whereas the other remaining petitioners were appointed as Primary Teachers by orders dated 14.03.2016, 20.01.2015, 02.02.2015, 18.08.2015, 19.12.2014, 04.09.2015, 27.07.2015, 29.03.2016, 31.01.2015, 22.02.2016, 11.08.2015, 23.06.2015, 06.04.2016, 17.11.2015, 30.09.2015, 29.10.2015 and 16.03.2015 respectively. 6.15. Out of 19 petitioners of WP(C)/64/2023, petitioner nos. 6.14. Out of 22 petitioners of WP(C)/63/2023, petitioner nos. 2, 5, 8, and 16 were appointed as Graduate Teachers, whereas the other remaining petitioners were appointed as Primary Teachers by orders dated 14.03.2016, 20.01.2015, 02.02.2015, 18.08.2015, 19.12.2014, 04.09.2015, 27.07.2015, 29.03.2016, 31.01.2015, 22.02.2016, 11.08.2015, 23.06.2015, 06.04.2016, 17.11.2015, 30.09.2015, 29.10.2015 and 16.03.2015 respectively. 6.15. Out of 19 petitioners of WP(C)/64/2023, petitioner nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 were appointed as Graduate Teachers whereas the remaining petitioners were appointed as Primary Teachers by Orders dated 03.08.2015, 04.08.2015, 29.06.2013, 03.09.2015, 29.10.2015, 20.06.2015, 19.04.2016, 04.04.2016, 21.08.2015 and 26.07.2011, 06.07.2015, 22.04.2016 and 11.06.2015 respectively issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad-hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.16. (WP(C)/65/2023) The petitioners, namely, Smti. Vekholu Nyekha, Smti. Y. Phenla and Smti. Rukulu Nyekha of WP(C)/65/2023 were appointed as Primary Teachers by Orders dated 27.07.2015, 02.07.2015 and 21.05.2015 respectively issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad-hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.17. Out of 18 petitioners of WP(C)/66/2023, petitioner nos. 5, 9, 14 and 17 were appointed as Graduate Teachers whereas the other remaining petitioners were appointed as Primary Teachers by Orders dated 27.07.2015, 30.09.2015, 17.11.2015, 31.05.2016, 17.07.2015, 18.07.2014, 28.03.2016, 14.03.2016, 26.02.2015, 18.04.2016, 22.08.2014, respectively, issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima on Ad-hoc, fixed pay basis. 6.18. Out of the 42 petitioners of WP(C) no. 67/ 2023, petitioner nos. 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 were appointed as Primary Teachers whereas, the remaining petitioners were appointed as Graduate Teachers by Orders dated 31.08.2015, 30.06.2016, 11.12.2015, 10.11.2015, 30.09.2015, 03.08.2015, 29.04.2016, 18.08.2015, 12.03.2015, 26.02.2015, 20.04.2015, 30.05.2016, 16.10.2015, 04.02.2015, 24.02.2015, 30.06.2016, 14.03.2016, 27.10.2015, 01.04.2015, 23.05.2016, 23.03.2016, 21.02.2016, 15.07.2015 and 08.06.2016 respectively. 7. Petitioner Nos.7 and 15 have withdrawn from WP(C)/ 46/2023, as they were not appointed against SSA. All the petitioners were appointed under SSA and they are thus entitled to same benefits as extended to others who were also appointed and under SSA. The petitioners are entitled for regularization by mainstreaming them into the State Education Cadre, under the Department of School Education. Moreover, as the petitioners are all qualified trained teachers, they are also entitled to scale of pay as granted to regular Primary/Graduate teachers under the Department of School Education. The petitioners are entitled for regularization by mainstreaming them into the State Education Cadre, under the Department of School Education. Moreover, as the petitioners are all qualified trained teachers, they are also entitled to scale of pay as granted to regular Primary/Graduate teachers under the Department of School Education. Therefore, the petitioners’ Association in the name and style of ‘Nagaland Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Adhoc Trained Teachers Association’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Association’), through its President and Secretary submitted representation on 10.10.2022 to the respondent no.2, Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of School Education, praying for mainstreaming their services to the State School Education Cadre and also to grant regular ‘scale of pay’. Their prayers were rejected and communicated to the President of the Association vide Order No.DSE/SSA/Estt/4-11/2022/616 dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure-25 of the WP (C)45/2023). 8. It is submitted that the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts and therefore are entitled to be encadred into the services of the School Education Department. They are all trained teachers with the same qualification at par with their counterparts who are regularized as Primary/ Graduate teachers. The action of the State Respondents in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for mainstreaming their services into the State School Education Cadre and for grant of regular scale of pay is highly arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and is liable to be set aside and quashed. The nature and quality of the work discharged by the petitioners are identical to their counterparts who are enjoying the scale of pay after regularization. This discriminatory act of the respondent authorities is thereby unconstitutional and the order dated 30.11.2022 is hereby liable to be set aside. 9. The petitioners being employed and engaged for the same work as regular employees cannot be paid less than the latter who performs equivalent duties with equivalent responsibilities. Such an action being demeaning strikes at the very foundation of human dignity which is against the principles of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and, it is a blatant act of oppression, suppression and coercion giving rise to involuntary subjugation resulting in exploitative, enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. The petitioners are aggrieved as being Primary and Graduate teachers, they are being paid only Rs.20,080/- and Rs. 27,400/-respectively. The petitioners are aggrieved as being Primary and Graduate teachers, they are being paid only Rs.20,080/- and Rs. 27,400/-respectively. The petitioners have thus prayed:- i) to set aside and quash the order dated 30.11.2022, ii) direct the respondent authorities to encadre the services of the petitioners in the Department of School Education, Nagaland as regular primary/graduate teachers by mainstreaming their services in the Department of School Education, iii) direct the respondent authorities to grant ‘Scale of pay’ to the petitioners with all consequential benefits as granted to the regular primary/ graduate teachers serving under the Department of School Education and to pass such orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Case of the respondents. 10. The State of Nagaland, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland; The Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of School Education, Kohima; The Principal Director, Directorate of School Education, Kohima; The State Mission Director, Nagaland Education Mission Society, SSA (now Samagra Shiksha) and the Union Of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of School Education and Literacy, New Delhi are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 o 5 respectively. 11. The respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have jointly filed an affidavit in opposition. The Additional Secretary to the Department of School Education on behalf of all the respondents have admitted the appointment of the petitioners and have stated that as per the terms and conditions of their appointments, the petitioners have to undergo PSCE course/ B.Ed training within a specific period from the date of appointment as mandated under the RTE Act 2009. All teachers are required to be professionally qualified and trained. Therefore, on humanitarian ground, since the petitioners did not possess the mandatory professional qualifications, approval was accorded to them to undergo PSTE/B.Ed training course, which does not confer any right to the petitioners to claim for regularization. 12. It is contended that the petitioners having been appointed against SSA posts (CSS) scheme, and after availing all the benefits sanctioned by SSA, centrally sponsored scheme under the erstwhile scheme of the Government of India, they have no right to seek mainstreaming/regularization of their service from the State Government. 13. 12. It is contended that the petitioners having been appointed against SSA posts (CSS) scheme, and after availing all the benefits sanctioned by SSA, centrally sponsored scheme under the erstwhile scheme of the Government of India, they have no right to seek mainstreaming/regularization of their service from the State Government. 13. Moreover, the pre-conditions in the appointment orders of the petitioners does not in any way impliedly/ expressly state that the petitioners would be mainstreamed and/or would be regularized in service based on the scheme under the SSA scheme. It is further submitted that the fact that the services of the petitioners were extended, also does not imply that their services would be mainstreamed and/ or regularized. The respondents have not conceded to the contention of the petitioners that, as they have been appointed against SSA, they are entitled to the benefits as extended to the others who were appointed under the SSA and regularized after mainstreaming into the State Education cadre. It is again contended that the batches 2010-2013 of SSA teachers who were mainstreamed into the State cadre were appointed after undergoing open recruitment process and through open advertisements. 14. On the contrary, the petitioners were well aware and they have also admitted that they were appointed on Ad-hoc basis purely for a specific scheme under the SSA/ RMSA. 15. It is averred that the petitioners were never selected in any selection / recruitment / examination process but were appointed on Ad-hoc basis against CSS scheme due to requirement at that particular period of time with terms and conditions purely under CSS scheme of SSA and as such the service of the petitioners cannot be mainstreamed under the State Education cadre. Further, the prayer of the petitioners for ‘Scale of pay’ cannot be granted as the Government of India under whose scheme the petitioners were engaged does not provide for ‘Scale of pay’. Therefore, the Government has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioners. Furthermore, the prayer for scale of pay cannot be granted as the their pay and allowances is drawn on SSA funds (CSS) depending upon the norms of Government of India. 16. Therefore, the Government has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioners. Furthermore, the prayer for scale of pay cannot be granted as the their pay and allowances is drawn on SSA funds (CSS) depending upon the norms of Government of India. 16. It is a settled principle of law that that even if any post is sanctioned with reference to the scheme, such sanction is Ad-hoc or temporarily co- terminus with the scheme and not of permanent post and therefore, one cannot seek permanency or regularization. In the instant case, the petitioners were appointed purely on Ad-hoc basis, specifically under the SSA/ RMSA scheme and as such, their services are purely governed by the policies set forth in the schemes of SSA/ RMSA by the Government of India. Moreover, the Government of India has not provided for grant of scale of pay but provides only a fixed amount under the scheme. Thus, there is no arbitrariness or discrimination in the rejection order passed by the respondent authorities which could be termed as unconstitutional as the scale of pay was not granted to the petitioners. 17. It is argued that the petitioners were appointed under the scheme and their pay and allowances are as per the sanction of the Ministry of Human Resource Development ( MHRD), Government of India. The appointment of the petitioners was further subjected to notifications/ policies issued by the State Government, MHRD relating to SSA/ RMSA from time to time. This being so, the petitioners cannot claim pay at par with the State regular Primary/Graduate teachers merely on the basis of similarity of quantum of work or designation. The policy of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not applicable where the nature of their appointment is totally different. In the absence of any directions/ policies from the MHRD, the petitioners are not entitled to ‘Scale of pay’. This is the reason why the petitioners were paid the fixed amount of Rs. 20,080/- and Rs.27,400/- respectively. The petitioners having understood the nature of their appointment, thereby accepting the sanctions by the Ministry cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. The only recourse available to them is to challenge the financial norms laid down in the integrated scheme of the Government of India. 20,080/- and Rs.27,400/- respectively. The petitioners having understood the nature of their appointment, thereby accepting the sanctions by the Ministry cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. The only recourse available to them is to challenge the financial norms laid down in the integrated scheme of the Government of India. However, the same is found lacking in the instant case, as the question of mainstreaming the petitioners into the services of the Education Department does not arise at all. Moreover, the pay/ salaries of the petitioners are drawn as per the specifications of the Government of India and the Ministry does not provide for ‘Scale of pay’ to the teachers appointed under the scheme of the SSA/RMSA. As such, there is no ground for the petitioners to be granted ‘Scale of pay’. 18. It is further submitted by the respondents that the State Government is struggling to even provide 10% of funds matching Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) owing to paucity of funds. These problems have escalated on the decision of the Central Government to reduce the salary support of all teachers engaged under the CSS. Over the years, the salary support to States by the Government of India has been declining. Plagued by these problems, the condition of the State finances remains critical. Salaries/ remuneration for CSS appointees are governed by the financial norms and funds sanctioned and amounts released by Government of India. In such a scenario the State with its meager resources will not be in a position to pay the petitioners. For a resource constrained State like Nagaland, retrenchment/ termination may be necessary as given in the appointment order to avoid serious negative financial implications on the State exchequer. It is submitted that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. Respondent no.5 five has also filed an affidavit- in-opposition. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Human and Resource Development, Department of Education has submitted objections in connection with Writ petitions (C) No. 45 up to 48, Writ petitions (C) No. 51 up to 56 and Writ petitions (C) No. 61 up to Writ petitions (C) 67, all of the year 2023. 20. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Human and Resource Development, Department of Education has submitted objections in connection with Writ petitions (C) No. 45 up to 48, Writ petitions (C) No. 51 up to 56 and Writ petitions (C) No. 61 up to Writ petitions (C) 67, all of the year 2023. 20. The learned counsel on behalf of respondent No. 5 has highlighted through the argument, the objects and reasons for enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, (the RTE Act for short), and also on the provisions of the RTE Act. It is submitted that the RTE Act mandates that every child of the age of 6 to 14 years shall have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbouring school, on completion of his or her elementary education. It is further submitted that section 2(a) of the RTE Act 2009 defines Appropriate Government as:- (i) in relation to a school established, owned or controlled by the Central Government, or the administrator of the Union Territory, having no legislature, the Central Government; (ii) in relation to a school, other than the school referred to in sub-clause (i), established within the territory of:- (A) a State, the State Government, (B) a Union Territory having legislature, the Government of that Union Territory. Section 23 of the RTE Act provides for the qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers and it is amply clear that the teachers have to be academically and professionally qualified. The Central Government authorizes the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE for short), as the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher vide Notification dated 31.03.2010. The copy of the notification dated 31.03.2010 is marked as Annexure R/1 of the affidavit submitted by respondent No. 5. 21. The Central Government authorizes the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE for short), as the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher vide Notification dated 31.03.2010. The copy of the notification dated 31.03.2010 is marked as Annexure R/1 of the affidavit submitted by respondent No. 5. 21. It is further emphasized through argument that in accordance to the provisions of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the NCTE vide Notification dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011 laid down that one of the essential qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in any of the ‘school’ referred to in Clause(n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act is that he/she should pass the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) which will be conducted by the Appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE. Accordingly, NCTE vide its Notification dated 23.08.2010 (as amended from time to time), has prescribed the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible as a teacher for Class 1 to 8. The Notification is marked as Annexure-R/2 of the counter-affidavit. It is thus submitted that the terms and conditions of service of all the teachers are governed and regulated by the concerned State Government as stipulated in the State Rules/Regulations/Notifications. It is submitted that the Schedule-2 of the RTE Act, 2009 (read with Sections 19 and 25) provides the number of teachers required. 22. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 5 that the Department of School Education and Literacy is implementing an integrated centrally sponsored scheme for school education, i.e., ‘Samagra Shiksha.’ The scheme provides support for implementation of the RTE Act and has now been aligned with the recommendations of the National Educational Policy (NEP), 2020. It aims to ensure that all children have access to quality education with an equitable and inclusive classroom environment which should take care of the diverse background, multilingual needs, different academic abilities and make them active participants in the learning process. 23. It is further submitted that under the scheme, funds are provided as per the fund sharing pattern decided by the Ministry of Finance, which is in the ratio of 60:40 between the Centre, States and Union Territories with legislature except for the eight north-eastern States and two Himalayan states and U.T. of Jammu and Kashmir which is 90:10. 23. It is further submitted that under the scheme, funds are provided as per the fund sharing pattern decided by the Ministry of Finance, which is in the ratio of 60:40 between the Centre, States and Union Territories with legislature except for the eight north-eastern States and two Himalayan states and U.T. of Jammu and Kashmir which is 90:10. It is 100 percent centrally sponsored for Union territories without legislature. Furthermore, as per chapter 6 of ‘Samagra Shiksha’ framework under point "6.9, 14.1- teacher recruitment, provides that the recruitment and other service matters of teachers are under the domain of State/ U.T. Governments and ‘Samagra Shiksha’ will only provide lump sum (aggregate) support as per the availability of funds, as per the norms given under programmatic and financial norms in appendix.” However, such support would be based on certain desirable guiding principles and required to be followed by the State/Union territories. While recruiting teachers and head teachers/principal, State and U.T.'s should fill the vacancies preferably on an annual basis. Provisions have to be made for subject specific teacher recruitment for upper primary, secondary and senior secondary classes. Decision 24. Heard learned counsel Mr. T. B. Jamir for the petitioners; learned Additional Advocate General, Ms. V. Sukhorie; learned Government Advocate, Ms. Livika for the State respondent and learned CGC, Mr. Yangerwati. 25. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at the Bar. 26. It is submitted on behalf of all the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed as primary teachers and graduate teachers and the last extension order was w.e.f. 01.01.2023 up to 31.12.2023. The petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts. Annexure-24 of W.P.(C) 45/2023, which is common to all the petitioners is the Notification dated 02.09.2022, relating to the mainstreaming of 2290 educationally and professionally qualified teachers as per NCTE norms appointed under the erstwhile SSA and RMSA batches of 2010 and 2013 into the state education cadre w.e.f. 21.04.2022, i.e., the date of cabinet approval and Annexure-25 is the impugned Notification dated 30.11.2022 of the W.P.(C) No. 45 of 2023 which is common to all the other writ petitions. 27. 27. It is contended that the statement of objects and reasons of the RTE Act, 2009 starts with a prelude that the crucial role of universal elementary education for strengthening the social fabric of democracy through provision of equal opportunities to all has been accepted since inception of our Republic as the essence of equal opportunities to all and this is entrenched in the Act. Section 23(3) of the Act deals with the salary and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of teachers as prescribed. Thus, it is manifest that salary and allowances cannot be construed as fixed pay. Section 38 deals with power of appropriate Government to make rules and Section 38(2)(l) indicates that the salary and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of teachers, as per sub-section-3 of Section 23 of the RTI Act. Right of children to free and compulsory education rules, 2010 (the RTE Rules, 2010 or the Rules of 2010 for short) through Rule 20 provides for salary and allowances and conditions of service of teachers which reads as:- “1. The Central Government or appropriate Government or the local authority, as the case may be, shall notify terms and conditions of service and salary and allowances of teachers of schools owned and managed by them in order to create a professional and permanent cadre of teachers. 2. In particular and without prejudice to sub-rule-1, the terms and conditions of service shall take into account the following namely:- (a) accountability of teachers to the school management committee, (b) provisions enabling long-term stake of teachers in the teaching profession, and 3. The scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund, and other prescribed benefits of teachers shall be at par for similar qualification, work and experience. 28. Drawing the attention of this Court to Section 23(3) of the RTE, Section 38(2)(l) of the RTE and the Rule 20 of the Rules of 2010, the learned counsel for the petitioners laid stress in his argument that the appointment of the petitioners on fixed pay is contrary to the RTE Act and Rules and also contrary to the policy of MHRD. The order of appointments of all the petitioners at Sl. The order of appointments of all the petitioners at Sl. No. 6 clearly indicates, "the appointment is further subject to- (i) notifications/policies issued by the State Government and MHRD relating to SSA/RMSA from time to time, (ii) verification of academic documents by competent authority. 29. It is contended that as per the criterion No. 6 of the appointment orders, fixed pay appointment is also contrary to the guidelines. Annexure-6 of the affidavit-in-opposition against WP(C)/45/2023 is the DO No. 11-2/2017-EF-13, issued by the Ministry of Education which includes the guidelines of the MHRD. Annexure-6 is common for all the petitions. 30. On the contrary, the learned counsel for Union of India laid stress in his argument that the primary and graduate teachers were appointed on SSA and RMSA scheme, which is a Central scheme and 90% of the funds are allocated by the Central Government, whereas 10% of funding of the scheme is allocated by the State Government. At present, the allocation of funds has been diversified to 75:25, where 75% is allocated by the Central Government, and 25% is allocated by the State Government. Thus, it is apparent that it is a scheme and not a sanctioned post. The appointment orders from page 32 to page 88 of the W.P.(C) 45/2023 and other similar appointment orders in all the analogous writ petitions, clearly indicates that the petitioners were selected on ad-hoc basis and not through recruitment process which are at par with the petitioners/appellants of W.A. 9/2020 (which the petitioners have relied upon). 31. The posts of the petitioners against which they were appointed are co-terminous with the scheme and the petitioners cannot pray for mainstreaming, even though the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts. The teachers recruited on 2010-2013 under the SSA and RMSA schemes were recruited through open advertisement and they are not at par with the present petitioners. They were selected on 16.08.2021 by the Ministry of Education. The scheme is about to be closed and the scheme will not continue. Uncertainty is looming large on the future of the scheme. Thus, under the scheme, the question of regularization does not arise at all. Further, it is submitted that although the learned counsel for the petitioners has assiduously projected the RTE Act of 2009, Rules were framed in the State of Nagaland and the Rules have to be followed. Uncertainty is looming large on the future of the scheme. Thus, under the scheme, the question of regularization does not arise at all. Further, it is submitted that although the learned counsel for the petitioners has assiduously projected the RTE Act of 2009, Rules were framed in the State of Nagaland and the Rules have to be followed. The petitioners can participate in the recruitment process which will be more feasible for the appointment on vacancies as well as on funds available. It is submitted that the petitioners do not have the requisite qualification. 32. It is further contended that the petitioners have tried to project the illegality of the recruitment process by drawing the attention of this Court to the RTE Act, but surprisingly, the petitioners have never challenged the Office Memo dated 27.01.2015 at page 123 of the W.P.(C) 45/2023 and similar annexures on other Writ petitions. This Office Memo was issued by the Ministry and the petitioners' grievances on irregularity of their appointment has not been challenged as this Office Memo has not been challenged. The appointment of the present petitioners is not at par with the regular employees and thus there is no discrimination. It is further submitted that the petitioners are entitled to minimum of the pay scale and not the ‘Scale of pay’ as Union and State have to allocate funds, as quantified to their respective shares. 33. The respondents have also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Muhammad Abdul Qadir and Anr vs. Director General of Police, Assam and Ors, (2009) 6, SCC 611 , wherein it has been held that:- “The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularisation. Even if any posts are sanctioned with reference to the Scheme, such sanction is of ad hoc or temporary posts coterminous with the Scheme and not of permanent posts.” It has been stated that the petitioners are not entitled to mainstreaming into the State cadre. 34. Per contra, the petitioners have contended that the respondents are also relying on the government policies and they have made it clear through their counter-affidavits. 34. Per contra, the petitioners have contended that the respondents are also relying on the government policies and they have made it clear through their counter-affidavits. It is an undisputed fact that “Association” of the petitioners had submitted a representation apprising that they were appointed against SSA and as such they are entitled to the same benefits as extended to others who were also appointed against SSA and for regularization by mainstreaming them into the state education cadre. 35. In the instant case, the only dispute between both the parties is that the respondents have claimed that the batches of 2010 and 2013 are not at par with the petitioners as they have been appointed after undergoing recruitment process through open advertisement/competition. This has not been denied by the petitioners. Nevertheless, it has not been clarified by the petitioners that they are willing to take part in any recruitment process through open advertisement. If the petitioners are aggrieved on the mainstreaming of the batches of 2010 and 2013, their grievance is not justified as they have not stated with clarity that their counterparts who were regularized, participated in open recruitment process which was advertised. Representation for mainstreaming of teachers serving on ad- hoc basis for regularization cannot be compared to regularization on recruitment process on open advertisement. In that case, parity cannot be considered to be a ground if the petitioners are anticipating that on their representation, their services will be regularized at par with the teachers of 2010 and 2013 batches, despite the principles of equal pay for equal work. 36. The petitioners have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 , wherein it has been held that:- “In our considered view it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities Certainly not in a welfare State Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity Anyone who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities Certainly not in a welfare State Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity Anyone who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family at the cost of his self respect and dignity at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situated constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement emerging out of a domineering position Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive as it compels involuntary subjugation”. 37. The petitioners have also relied on a decision of this Court in Amos Seb and 434 Ors vs. The State of Nagaland and 6 Ors in W.A. 09/2020, wherein vide order dated 16.03.2022, it has been held that:- “16. In the case in hand, it is an admitted fact that the eligibility, nature and quality of the work, duties and effort, need and responsibilities of the post of Graduate Teachers are identical, be that of the petitioners or their counterparts, who are getting the regular scale of pay. It is not the case of the respondent State that the skills and responsibilities of the petitioners and their counterparts who are getting the regular scale of pay are substantially different, rather it is already established that their functions are absolutely similar. 17. A comparative evaluation of the job and the posts, makes its absolutely clear that the petitioners are having similar qualifications, they are posted and appointed in similar Schools managed by the State authorities and its instrumentalities and the students whom they are teaching are similar to that of their counterparts who are getting the regular scale of pay. In fact some of the petitioners are serving and teaching in the same Schools and same students but getting lesser scale of pay than their counterparts. 18. In fact some of the petitioners are serving and teaching in the same Schools and same students but getting lesser scale of pay than their counterparts. 18. In view of the given facts, the pleading by the petitioners and the counter pleadings by the respondent authorities and the admission of the respondent State, it is abundantly clear that the petitioners are doing equal work and duties and efforts. Both the petitioners and their counterparts were also selected by similar selection process, the posts were temporarily sanctioned in both the cases by the State authorities, they were posted in similar Schools and in such a situation, this Court is left with no option but to hold that the petitioners all entitled for similar scales of pay like their counterparts who are getting the regular scale of pay doing similar work. Therefore, it will not be permissible for the State respondents to treat the two classes of teachers differently so far relating to their scales of pay. 19. While deciding the issue, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the aforesaid facts that the petitioner and their counter parts who were getting scales of pay are equally placed and there is whole-some equality between them. The learned Single Judge rejected the prayer on the basis of the contract bond signed by the petitioners and delay in approaching the Court inasmuch as the date of advertisement, the posts were not created and scales were not given. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussions, findings and decisions, this Court holds that the petitioners are entitled for scales of pay at Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- p.m. Accordingly, it is directed the State respondents to grant such scales of pay to the petitioners forthwith. 20. It is made clear that this Court is not determining the issue regarding the decision of the State whereby the other teachers excluding the petitioners were brought under State cadres with benefit including NPS, same being not under challenged in the writ petition and not determined.” 38. Reverting back to this case, it is held that the case of the petitioners is not similar to the case referred to by the petitioners in W.A.09/2020. The ratio of the decision in Jagjit Singh (Supra) is also not applicable to this case. Reverting back to this case, it is held that the case of the petitioners is not similar to the case referred to by the petitioners in W.A.09/2020. The ratio of the decision in Jagjit Singh (Supra) is also not applicable to this case. In the instant case, the petitioners cannot be held to be at par with the batches of 2010 and 2013. It is amply clear that the petitioners were initially not qualified when they were inducted as primary teachers and graduate teachers. During their service tenure, the petitioners were sent for training and they have successfully qualified as B.Ed./B.E.teachers. Moreover,it is also not clear why the petitioners did not participate in the open advertisement and it is not clear if their age, qualification, experience and other criteria were not sufficient for the petitioners to participate in the recruitment process through open advertisement. It is relatively opaque if there are sufficient quotas for fresh candidates as well as for the candidates who were serving on ad-hoc basis. 39. Apart from the submission of the petitioners that they are discharging similar duties and they have served the department for a prolonged period, the petitioners have not once disputed that their counterparts have been selected through open advertisement. This difference in situation between the petitioners and their counterparts of 2010-2013 batch debars the petitioners to claim for regularization on the ground of parity. The petitioners cannot claim for parity on this simple distinction with their counterparts. It is true that the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts but such sanction on ad-hoc or temporary basis is coterminous with the scheme and not with permanent posts. Therefore, the petitioners prayer for regularization at par with the counterparts is without a strong foundation when their counterparts, as submitted by the respondents have been selected through open recruitment process. No wholesome equality between the petitioners and their encadred counterparts is discernible. 40. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the selection of the petitioners were not on proper procedure, the respondents cannot claim regularization to be conducted through proper procedure i.e., selection through recruitment by open advertisement. 41. No wholesome equality between the petitioners and their encadred counterparts is discernible. 40. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the selection of the petitioners were not on proper procedure, the respondents cannot claim regularization to be conducted through proper procedure i.e., selection through recruitment by open advertisement. 41. On the contrary, the respondents have submitted that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the selection procedure which was allegedly illegal and not as per the norms of the RTE Act, the petitioners ought to have challenged the financial norms laid down in the integrated scheme of the Government of India, which is however lacking in the instant case. The petitioners, if so aggrieved by the mode of payment, the only recourse available to them is to challenge the financial norms laid down in the integrated scheme of the Government of India. 42. I find force in the argument of the respondents. Nevertheless, the principles of equal pay for equal work cannot be ignored in toto. The respondents could not refute that the petitioners are discharging similar duties as their counterparts who have been regularized. It appears that equity will prevail if the petitioners are accorded an opportunity for regularization within the existing norms. 43. The Order No. DSE/SSA/ESSTT/4-11/2022/613 dated Kohima the 30 th November, 2022 is hereby set aside. 44. Thereby, the respondents are directed to :- Consider the representation of the petitioners dated 10.10.2022 afresh, and, Consider the prayer of the petitioners for regularization and their prayer for ‘scale of pay’ as expeditiously as plausible and to allow them to participate in the recruitment process in the event of any vacancies as per the existing norms and in accordance with law. The age of the petitioners who have crossed their upper age limit may be relaxed. 45. In terms of the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 46. No order as to costs.