Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—With the consent of learned counsel for the parties since common questions of law and facts have been raised in all these matters, I proceed to decide these matters finally under the Rules of this Court at this stage by this common judgment.

2. In this bunch of writ petitions the core issue relates to the Government Order (hereinafter referred to as the “G.O.”) No. Ve.Aa-2-27/Dus-59(M)/2008, dated 6.1.2011 issued by Sri Anoop Mishra, Principal Secretary, Finance U.P. Government, Lucknow addressed to various Principle Secretaries of different departments and Directors of different departments. The subject of G.O. is sanctioned Pay Band and Grade pay as modified/upgraded for Class-IV cadre of aided educational/technical educational institutions in the revised pay-scale pursuant to 6th Pay Commission recommendation. Though in the writ petitions entire G.O. is challenged but during the course of arguments the learned counsels for petitioners have confined their attack only to Para 2 thereof. Para 2 says that in future no appointment on Class-IV posts (except the junior cadre of technical posts) shall be made and vacancies of Class-IV posts shall be managed by the system of outsourcing.

3. The relevant para 2 of G.O. dated 6.1.2011 reads as under:

^2- eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd Hkfo"; esa prqFkZ Js.kh ds fdlh Hkh in ¼dfu"B oxZ ds izkfof/kd inksa dks NksM+dj½ ij fu;qfDr ugha dh tk;sxh rFkk prqFkZ Js.kh ds fjDr gksus okys inksa ds lEcU/k esa dsoy vkÃbV lksflZax ds ek/;e ls O;oLFkk dh tk;A

ijUrq mDr O;oLFkk mRrj izns’k lsok dky esa e`r ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dh HkrhZ fu;ekoyh 1974 ds vUrxZr lewg ^^?k** ds inks ij dh tkus okyh fu;qfDr ds lacaèk esa ykxw ugha gksxhA**

“2. I am directed to say that in future appointments shall not be made on any Class IV posts (except on the junior cadre of technical posts) and the Class IV posts falling vacant shall be managed only by outsourcing.

But the said provision shall not apply to the appointments to be made on the Group D posts under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974.”

(English translation by the Court)

4. Some of the writ petitions have been filed by Committee of Managements of Secondary Schools and Colleges challenging para 2 of G.O. dated 6.1.2011 as it deny them power of appointment on Class-IV posts in their respective educational institutions. Some of the writ petitions have been filed by candidates who have been selected for appointment on Class-IV posts for various secondary educational institutions but educational authorities have denied approval or recognition to such selection in view of the ban imposed vide para 2 of G.O. dated 6.1.2011.

5. The respondents-State of U.P. and its authorities have filed counter-affidavit in some of the writ petitions and learned counsels for the parties have agreed to read the said counter-affidavits in all matters. For referring the pleadings in counter-affidavit, the parties have referred to Writ Petition No. 27387 of 2011 and this Court shall also proceed to refer pleadings in the aforesaid counter-affidavit.

6. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate has advanced his submissions in Writ Petition Nos. 62476 of 2011, 62616 of 2011 and 74197 of 2011. Sri N.L. Pandey, Advocate in Writ Petition No. 11760 of 2011; Sri A.N. Rai, Advocate in Writ Petition No. 63197 of 2011 and Sri G.K. Singh, Advocate in Writ Petition No. 8492 of 2012 have made their submisisons. The other learned counsels appearing for petitioners have adopted the submissions advanced by the above learned counsels.

7. The basic ground of challenge is that the impugned G.O. is ultra vires of Section 16(G) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1921”) and Regulation 100 Chapter III of Regulations framed under Act, 1921. It is even otherwise arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Constituting an encroac