( 1 ) THE petitioners in this application have inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:". . . this Hon ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Act no. 27/98 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed by the hon ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal Nos. 82 and 83/99, dated 11-1-99 and Civil Appeal Nos. 1867 and 1868 of 99, dt. 26-3-99 and further direct the respondents as Supervisors (Asst. Engineers)/tracer in the existing vacancies in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 212 F and P, dt 22-4-94 and g. O. Ms. No. 330, MA dt 24-9-94 and also as per the Judgments of the hon ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal Nos. 82 and 83/99 dt 11-1-99 and Civil Appeal Nos. 1867 and 1868 df 99, dt 26-3-99 without insisting the completion of 5 years of service as on 25-11-93 by declaring that they are entitled for regularisation from the date of completion of 5 years of service and eligible to draw the scale of supervisors / Asst. Engineers / Tracer from the date of completion of 5 years of service and pass such other order or orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. It is also just and necessary of justice that this Hon ble Court maybe pleased to direct the respondents to pay the minimum time scale to the petitioners corresponding to the regular supervisors (Asst. Engineers)/tracer working in the authority from April, 99 onwards and pass such other order or orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

( 2 ) HOWEVER, at the time of hearing, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that he does not press the question as regards the vires of act No. 27 of 1998. The only question which, therefore, remained for consideration is as to whether the petitioners have a legal right to be regularised in the services. The petitioners are four in number. The petitioners 1 to 3 were appointed on 15-9-1989,1-12-1989 and 8-8-1989 respectively in the post of supervisor on daily wage basis and the petitioner No. 4 was appointed on 1-2-1990 as Tracer in the Engineering Department. The State Government issued a government Order being G. O. Ms. No. 212 on 22-4-1994. The relevant provisions whereof are:". . . . Though the Act provides that no person who is daily wage employee and no person who is appointed on temporary basis shall have any right to claim for regularisation of services on any ground, it has been the endeavour of the Government to regularise as many as NMR/daily wage employees as possible who are otherwise qualified depending upon the requirement of the work-load while keeping in mind the hardship that would be caused if their services are not regularised. The Hon ble Supreme court in its judgment dated 12-8-1992 in Civil Appeal No. 2979 of 1992 and batch have also observed to evolve an appropriate policy for regularisation. Accordingly, Government after careful examination of the whole issue and in supersession of all previous orders on the subject including G. O. Ms. No. 193, general Administration Department, dt 14-3-1990 and keeping in view the above judgments of the Supreme court of India, have formulated a scheme for regularisation of services of the persons appointed on daily wage/ nmr or on consolidated pay and are continuing on the date of commencement of the Act. Government accordingly decided that the services of such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and are continuing on 25-11-1993 be regularised by the appointing authorities subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: (1) The persons appointed should possess the qualifications prescribed as per rules in force as on the date from which his/her services have been regularised. (2) They should be within the age limits as on the date of appointment as NMR/daily wage employee. (3) The rule of reservation