JUDGMENT
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
1. It is averred in the writ petition that petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 came to be appointed as Casual Labourers in the year 1991 and petitioner No. 5 came to be engaged as daily wager in the year 1989 and were performing duties as Accountant-cum-Storekeepers. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 5 was being paid wages as daily wagers while as respondents 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 were performing their job with out any remuneration. It is also submitted that the petitioners worked against the post of Assistant Craftsman and Accountant-cum-Storekeepers and they prayed that their services be regularized.
2. Respondents have resisted the petition on the ground that the engagement of the petitioners was honorary and is no engagement in the eye of law. The post of Craftsman and Accountant-cum-Storekeeper are to be filled by direct recruitment by selection process and can not be filled by any other method, de hors the rules.
3. It appears that the petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 came to be engaged as Casual Labourers without any salary but on honorarium basis whereas petitioner No. 5 was working as daily wager right from 1989.
4. The crux of the matter is whether respondents can be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners against the post of Assistant Craftsman/Accountant-cum-Storekeeper. The service rules of the Handloom Department indicate that both the posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment. Thus respondents can not commanded to regularize their services against the said posts because their appointment is on honorarium so far it relates to petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 and on daily wage basis so far it relates to petitioner No. 5. Thus no appointment can be made to these posts de-hors the rules and the petitioners can not invoke jurisdiction of this Court in order to seek appointment and that too de-hors the rules. Petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 were admittedly not working on daily wage basis from 1991. They were casual labourers that too on honorarium. Thus SRO 64 of 1994 is also not attracted in their case. Thus the writ petition in so far it relates to petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 merits to be dismissed.
5. Admittedly petitioner No. 5 namely Sajad Ahmad came to be engaged as daily wager and was being paid wages on daily wage basis right from 1989. He has thus completed 7 years of service and is entitled to regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994.
6. For the reasons narrated above, writ petition in so far it relates to petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 is dismissed and in so far as it relates to petitioner No. 5 is allowed and the respondents are commanded to consider his case for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 within a period of three months. The period of three months shall commence from the date copy of this judgement is served by the petitioner on the respondents.
Disposed of accordingly along with all connected CMPs.