The main legal point established in the judgment is that engagements in violation of rules do not confer an enforceable right for regularisation, and interim court orders do not enhance the case for regularisation.

2. Petitioners in all these petitions have been engaged as Daily Rated Workers/Seasonal Workers or Causal Labourers by the Respondents, including Field/Subordinate Officers. In these petitions, they seek direction to the respondents to regularise their services under the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 on the ground that they have completed seven years as Daily Rated Workers/Casual Workers and seasonal Labourers and also on the ground that some of the petitioners, who have not completed seven years service but have performed election duty in the Valley are entitled to seek regularisation of their services in terms of Government order No. 355-GAD of 1996 dated 30th April, 1996. In some of the petitions, the petitioners plead, that while working as Daily Rated workers/ Casual Workers/Seasonal Workers they were taken into preventive detention and, after their release from such detention, have been re-engaged and, therefore, the period for which they were kept in preventive detention should be taken into consideration as having actively worked in their respective engagements and by giving the benefit of the period of detention, their services should be regularised. Some of the petitioners have been engaged prior to January, 1994, i.e., before the issuance of Government order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31st January, 1994, some after the issuance of the said Government order and even after the issuance of SRO 64 of 1994 dated 24th March, 1994. The petitioners also seek wages for the periods they have worked where ever they have not been paid by the respondents. Some petitioners seek regularization on higher posts instead of class IV post.

3. In one of the petitions, SWP No. 871/2000, it is contended that the petitioner was engaged prior to 31st January, 1994 and, on account of militancy, had to migrate from the Valley to Jammu. He has been re-engaged and claims regularisation in terms of Government order No. 27-F of 1997 dated 14.1.1997. Since the petitioner in this petition forms a distinct class in itself, the point in issue in this petition will be dealt with separately.

4. The respondents in some of the petitions have filed their objections/reply/Counter-affidavits.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents have not opposed the admission of these petitions, which are, accordingly, admitted, and sought permission of the court to argue the petitions for final disposal which was not opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, legal and factual submission relating to these Petitions were made.

6. It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondents that those of the petitioners, who have been engaged as Seasonal Labourers or Casual Labourers, have no right to seek consideration for regularisation of their services as they do not fall within the definition of Daily Rated Workers in terms of Rule 2 (f) of SRO 64 of 1994. Similarly, the Daily Rated Workers, who have been engaged after issuance of Government order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31st January, 1994, in breach of the policy of the Government indicated in Para 1(d) of the said Government order and also those engaged in violation of Rule 7 Of SRO 64 of 1994, are not entitled to seek regularisation. It is also stated by the respondents that in some of the writ petitions the engagements have been managed by the relations of the petitioners working in the departments, such as father or brother, while as, in some cases the engagements are totally fake and that almost all the petitioners are continuing on the strength of interim directions of the court. It is further stated that in some cases there are interim directions from the court for continuation but the appointees have already been disengaged by the respondents before such interim directions were passed and such of the petitioners are also not entitled to seek regularisation. It is also the plea of the respondents that in