S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE matter relates to regularisation of services of the original applicants. These batch of writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 3-7-1998 passed in O. A. Nos. 6199 of 1996 by the learned Tribunal whereby and whereunder the applications filed by the original applicants were disposed of with the following directions:" (I) The respondents are directed to consider the cases of all eligible part-time lecturers who have completed 360 working days in three academic years or 600 working days in five academic years by 31-3-1998 i. e. , the date on which the scheme came to an end for regularisation of their services. (ii) The respondents are also directed to count public/national holidays, maternity leave etc. , on par with other regular employees for the purpose of calculating the number of working days to arrive at eligibility for regularisation of services of part-time lecturers, minimum of the scale of pay attached to the post with allowances as per the rules to those part-time lecturers who are possessing post-graduate qualification with not less than 55% of marks in the relevant subject in case of junior lecturers and who are teaching 16 hours in a week as prescribed under G. O. Ms. No. 166, education, dated 8-6-1994. " ( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. ( 3 ) HAVING regard to the judgment of the State Administrative Tribunal and also the Apex Court judgement as regards to regularisation of Part-time Lecturers/junior lecturers working in various Government degree or junior colleges, the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 221, Education, dated 20-6-1995 formulated a liberalised eligibility criteria for regularisation of their services. The relevant portion of the said G. O. Ms. No. 221, Education, dated 20-6-1995, is thus:" (3) Those who have put in a service of three academic years as on 30-7-1991 or five academic years as on 25-11-1993 with or without breaks and are continuing in service on 30-7-1991 or 25-11-1993, as the case may be will be eligible for regularisation of services. The service rendered by the part-time Lecturers/junior Lecturers in more than one Government College may be taken into account based on the certificates issued by the Principals and countersigned by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education/director of Intermediate Education as the case may be. The service rendered by the part-time Lecturers/junior Lecturers in more than one Government College may be taken into account based on the certificates issued by the Principals and countersigned by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education/director of Intermediate Education as the case may be. Explanation : (a) As 120 days are considered to be reasonable number of working days for an academic year, the part-time Lecturer should have put in 360 days as on 30-7-1991 or 600 working days by 25-11-1993 with or without breaks as the case may be. " ( 4 ) THE contention raised by the applicants- respondents herein inter alia was that though the Government by G. O. Ms. No. 1, Education, dated 1-1-1998 fixed 31-3-1998 as the deadline for completing the exercise of implementation of the scheme of regularisation, no steps have been taken to implement the said scheme in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 221, Education, dated 20-6-1995. It was further the contention of the applicants that fixing a cut-off date in G. O. Ms. No. 221, Education, dated 20-6-1995 for the purpose of computation of eligibility criteria for regularisation of services of Part-time Lecturers/junior lecturers was arbitrary and illegal. It was also contended that the number of days availed by way of different leaves as also public/national holidays should be treated as working days for the purpose of computation. ( 5 ) THE learned Tribunal, basing on the respective pleadings and rival contentions, framed the following issues:1. Whether the applicants are entitled to be regularised in the category of lecturers/junior Lecturers ? If so from what date?2. Whether Sundays and Public holidays, Maternity leave etc. , can be counted for the purpose of calculating number of working days for arriving at the eligibility for regularisation of services of Part- time lecturers ?3. Whether the Part-time Lecturers are entitled for payment of salaries calculated at the minimum of the time scale of pay applicable to the post of junior Lecturer/lecturer ?4. Whether the respondents have committed any violation of the orders dated 16-10-1992 in O. A. No. 45811 of 1991 and batch? ( 6 ) THE learned Tribunal , having regard to its earlier decision passed in O. A. No. 45811 of 1991 and batch, in pursuance of which the Government issued G. O. Ms. Nos. Whether the respondents have committed any violation of the orders dated 16-10-1992 in O. A. No. 45811 of 1991 and batch? ( 6 ) THE learned Tribunal , having regard to its earlier decision passed in O. A. No. 45811 of 1991 and batch, in pursuance of which the Government issued G. O. Ms. Nos. 278, 271, 45 and 221 stipulating certain guidelines for regularisation, and also having regard to the judgment of this Court in a batch of cases dealing with G. O. Ms. No. 212, has held as under :"in the light of the judgment of the Supreme court referred to above and G. O. Ms. No. 212 dealing with the regularisation of service of daily wage employees other than Part-time lecturers, the respondents are directed to consider the case of all eligible Part-time lecturers who have completed 360 working days in three academic years or 600 working days in five academic years as on 31-3-1998 i. e. , the date on which the scheme came to an end for regularisation of their services. " ( 7 ) LEARNED Additional Advocate- general appearing for the petitioners inter alia raised two principal contentions in the instant case. Learned Counsel would contend that having regard to the fact that a cut off date was fixed by reason of the aforementioned G. O. Ms. No. 221, and as noticed supra, the learned Tribunal could not have passed the impugned order , as a result whereof, the policy decision taken by the Government has been faulted. Secondly, he would contend that the finding of the learned Tribunal is based upon misinterpretation and misreading of the g. O. Ms. No. 1, Education, dated 1-1-1998 wherein no cut off date has been fixed or changed for the purpose of regularisation, but for the purpose of uniformity, a time frame was stipulated for completion/ fmalisation of regularisation of Part-time lecturers as per the scheme enunciated in G. O. Ms. No. 221, Education, dated 20-6-1995 and therefore the cut-off date i. e. , 31-3-1998 fixed by the Tribunal is impermissible in law and the same is unsustainable. Learned Counsel would further contend the direction to give credit of public/national holidays and also other types of leaves availed for the purpose of computation is clearly inconsistent with the scheme. Learned Counsel for the applicants however, support the decision of the learned Tribunal. Learned Counsel would further contend the direction to give credit of public/national holidays and also other types of leaves availed for the purpose of computation is clearly inconsistent with the scheme. Learned Counsel for the applicants however, support the decision of the learned Tribunal. ( 8 ) IT is well settled principles of law, that having regard to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, a person cannot seek for regularisation of his/ her services as a matter of right. Regularisation of services must emanate from the statute, and in the absence of statute, from statutory rules or a scheme. The original applicants in the said applications, as noticed supra, did not question the validity or otherwise of the aforementioned G. O. Ms. No. 221, Education, dated 20-6-1995. In respect of any policy decision taken by the State, in exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution, the Court may consider the validity or otherwise of such policy decision and in any event, if it is found that the said policy decision is not conforming to the constitutional requirements, the same is liable to be declared as ultra vires. But while considering the validity or otherwise of such policy decision, the Court or the tribunal, in our considered opinion, has no jurisdiction to alter the policy, as the Court does not have the requisite expertise, in that behalf. Further now having regard to the constitutional mandate as regards separation of power, the Court cannot make any legislation. We are fortified in this view by the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal Gandhi, AIR 1997 SC 782 , wherein the Apex Court has held that substitution of another cut-off date by High Court giving retrospective effect is not proper. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the direction issued by the learned Tribunal cannot be upheld. The learned Tribunal appears to have proceeded to alter the cut-off date wholly on the wrong premise and upon misreading and misinterpretation of G. O. Ms. No. 1, education, dated 1-1-1998. The relevant portion of G. O. Ms. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the direction issued by the learned Tribunal cannot be upheld. The learned Tribunal appears to have proceeded to alter the cut-off date wholly on the wrong premise and upon misreading and misinterpretation of G. O. Ms. No. 1, education, dated 1-1-1998. The relevant portion of G. O. Ms. No. l, is thus :"government have considered it necessary for the purpose of uniformity, that is similar time-frame be stipulated for completion/ fmalisation of regularisation of part- time lecturer/part-time junior lecturers working in government Degree Colleges/government junior Colleges as per the scheme approved in Government Order 1st read above. " ( 9 ) THE learned Tribunal was not correct in fixing the cut-off date as on 31-3-1998 in purport of G. O. Ms. No. 1, education, dated 1-1-1998. Another aspect of the matter is that G. O. Ms. No. 221, education, dated 20-6-1995 was issued keeping in view the orders of appointment which have been already issued. If the cutoff date is altered to 31-3-1998, the persons those who were appointed after issuance of g. O. Ms. No. l, Education, dated 1-1-1998 would otherwise qualify and their cases would also to be considered for regularisation. Such direction, in our opinion, would entirely alter the base of the scheme. By reason of G. O. Ms. No. 221, Education, dated 20-6-1995, only one time facility has been granted. The submission of the learned additional Advocate-General is to the effect that having regard to the language used in g. O. Ms. No. 221, dated 20-6-1995 the public/national holidays and other different types of leaves would not have been reckoned for the purpose of fulfilling the preconditions for regularisation. The said G. O. Ms. No. 221, Education, dated 20-6-1995 categorically lays down the condition inasmuch as 120 days are considered to be reasonable number of working days for an academic year. Insofar as Part-time lecturers are concerned they should have put in 360 working days as on 30-7-1991 or 600 working days by 25-11-1993 with or without breaks as the case may be. ( 10 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from misdirection in law inasmuch as the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order failed to take into consideration the relevant factors but considered irrelevant factors not germane for determining the dispute. ( 10 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from misdirection in law inasmuch as the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order failed to take into consideration the relevant factors but considered irrelevant factors not germane for determining the dispute. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, having regard to the fact that the case of similarly placed applicant- respondent in WP No. 2093 of 1999 has been considered by the Government and her services are regularised in accordance with G. O. Ms. No. 221, Education dated 20-6-1995, we are of the opinion that the action on the part of the petitioners in going for selective regularisation and singling out some of them by giving the benefits thereof while denying the same to others must be deprecated. The object and purport of G. O. Ms. No. 221, must be given its fullest effect and the same should be implemented in case of all concerned, who have fulfilled the pre-conditions laid down therein. ( 12 ) IN this view of the matter, the cases of the applicants concerned shall be considered in accordance with G. O. Ms. No. 221, Education, dated 20-6-1995, as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 13 ) IN the result, the writ petitions are allowed, subject to the aforementioned observations. No order as to costs.