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. 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