These Special Appeals are being disposed of by a com mon judgment, as common questions of law arise in all these appeals. The learned Single Judge, in the writ petition giving rise to these special appeals, passed an order directing the appellants to regularise the service of the petitioner-respondents.

2. The petitioner-respondents were working in the Forest Department and their contention was that they had been working for more than three years and were entitled for reguiarisation. The learned Single Judge, taking the view that as the petitioners had been working for more than three years, they were entitled for reguiarisation, allowed the writ peti tions and directed the appellants to regularise the services of the petitioners on the post on which they had been work ing.

3. The main thrust of the submission Regulations and the Circulars but no mandami, can be issued by the Court directing the authorities to regularise the services of the respondents. It depends upon various facts. In case there is any Rule applicable for regularisation of their services the authorities can regularise only if the necessary conditions mentioned in such Rules are fulfilled. The authorities have further to take into consideration the eligibility of the employees, their past con duct and further whether there were vacant posts on which they can be regularised.

4. In Khagesh Kumar and others v. Inspector General of Registration and others, (1996) 1 UPLBEC 23, wherein the daily rated workers claimed regularisation of their services on the ground that they had worked for more than three years, their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court held that the regularisation could be done only in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside Pur view of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. The Rules provide detailed procedure for regularisation. Regarding those who were not entitled for regularisa tion under the Rules, it was directed that they maybe considered for appointment at the time of regular recruitment taking into consideration their past experience A Division Bench of this Court in Garhwal Jal Sansthan v. Jagdish Prasad Magain, 1995 (70) FLR 179 set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge for regularisation of service of the petitioner in that case. It was held that no direction for regularisation of service of an employee should be made but a direction can be given to consider his case for regularisation. The regularisation depends upon the various factors such as, nature of the work, conduct of the employee concerned and the availability of the post. The Court quoted the observa tion made in the case of Zakir Hussain v. Engineer-in-Chief, 1993 (1) UPLBEC 15 as follows: -

"merely because an employee has worked for two or three years he cannot claim regularisation of service as a matter of right. For regularisation as mentioned before, there must be both posts an funds and the need for reten tion of the employees according to the requirement of work. That apart he must be qualified and the work and conduct of such employee must also be satisfactory. It is also to be

con sidered whether appointment on ad hoc/daily wages Lasis have been made against the leave or casual vacancies. In cases of appointment on such vacancies iaere would hardly be any scope for regularisation. These and various other fac tors have to be taken into consideration before deciding the question as to whether service of an employee, appointed on ad hoc/daily wages basis should be regularised. Regularisation can not be made as rule of thumb on the basis of completion of certain years of service of such an employee. It all depends on various facts, some of which have been mentioned above and it is for the employer to decide as to whether in view of the fact and circumstances of the case, the ser vices of those employees who were appointed on ad hoc/daily wages basis, should be regularised. "

Simi