The main legal point established in the judgment is that continuous employment for more than 10 years on daily wage basis should be considered for regularization, irrespective of the appointment date, as long as the employee meets the prescribed qualifications and there is no fraud or misrepresentation.

( 1 ) AS this petitions involve common question of law we have heard and disposed of these petitions by this common order. Facts in W. P. No. 45030/2002:1. The respondent herein approached the Karnataka administrative Tribunal in Application No. 10244/2001 alleging that he was initially appointed on daily wage basis on 1-1-1984 as a forest Watcher, that after two years there was a break as he was discharged and he was re-appointed with effect from 1-1-1992; that as he had served for more than 2400 days in a block period of 10 years, he was entitled to regularisation relying on the Government order dated 20-10-1994; that as his request was not considered, he approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No 3649/1999 and the Tribunal disposed of the said Application by order dated 18-8-2000 directing the petitioners herein to consider the representation and take a decision thereon; and that thereafter an endorsement dated 13-12-2000 was issued to him rejecting his request for regularization. He therefore, sought quashing of the endorsement dated 13-12-2000 and a direction to petitioners herein to regularize his services as a Forest Watcher with all consequential benefits.

( 2 ) THE petitioners herein resisted the said application on the ground that the respondent had worked between January 1984 to december 1985; that thereafter that in December 1985 he voluntarily left the work; that he was re-employed as a daily wage worker only in March 1992 and therefore what should be reckoned is the service from March, 1992; and that as he was appointed after 1-7-1984 and as he had not completed 10 years service, he was not entitled to claim regularization.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal by order dated 9-9-2002 allowed the application in part. It held that having regard to the decision in PREMAKALA shetty and OTHERS vs COMMON CADRE AUTHORITY1 what was necessary for regularization was 10 years service irrespective of whether they were appointed prior to 1-7-1984 or after 1-7-1984; that as petitioner had completed 10 years of continues service as on the date of the order, his requests for regularization requires to be considered, particularly as he had worked for more than 2400 days during the period of 10 years. It therefore directed the petitioners to find out whether respondent had in fact worked for 10 years or 2400 days in 10 years and consider his case for regularization accordingly. Facts in WP Nos 793 to 796/2003

( 4 ) THE respondents herein approached the Karnataka administrative Tribunal in Application Nos. 6930-6933/2001 seeking a direction to the petitioners to regularize their service in the posts held by them or equivalent posts with consequential benefits. The respondents alleged that they had been appointed on daily wages on various dates between 1-7-1985 and 4-9-1987 and having been continuously worked ever since then and completed 10 years of service on daily wage basis and therefore they were entitled to regularization.

( 5 ) THE petitioners herein filed their reply admitting that respondents have been working from the respective dates mentioned by them. But they contended that the respondents were not entitled to regularisation as they were all appointed on daily wage basis after the cut off date 1-7-1984.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal allowed the applications in part by order dated 26-9-2002. It held that having regard to the decision in SMT premakala SHETTY vs COMMON CADRE AUTHORITY (Supra) which has been affirmed by the Division Bench and by the Supreme court, the contention of the petitioners herein that for regularisation of the appointment on daily wage basis ought to have been prior to 1-7-1984 was not correct. The Tribunal held that what was the relief was 10 years service and not the date of initial appointment. Common contentions:

( 7 ) FEELINGS aggrieved, respondents in the said applications have filed these petitions. They have reiterated their contentions urged before the Tribunal in these petitions th