JUDGEMENT 1. Fayaz Ahmad Badam petitioner in SWP No. 1283 of 1996, was engaged as daily wager in ITI, Shopian on Muster Roll by express order No. 120 dated 5.10.1994 passed by the Dy. Director, Technical Education, Srinagar. 2. Amina Banoo petitioner in SWP No. 116/97 was engaged daily wager on usual terms and conditions by order No. 6034-36/SB dated: 22.02.1995 passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Statistics Division, Srinagar. 3. Bashir Ahmad Mir petitioner in SWP No. 41/97 was engaged as daily wager by BDO, Trehgam, Kupwara vide his order No. BT/BDO (T) Camp/12-14 dated 01.04.1995 directing that his wages shall be paid under works programme only. 4. The petitioners seek their continuation and regularization of their services and the release of unpaid wages. 5. Respondents in SWP No. 116/97 have filed objections stating therein that the engagement of the petitioner has been made despite the fact that there was a ban on engagement of the daily wagers, imposed by the Government in terms of rule 7 of the SRO 64 of 1994. The power to engage daily wagers by the respondents has been withdrawn which is apparent from the provisions of the above referred SRO. The engagement order of the petitioners being de hors the rules does not vest any right to seek continuation or regularization of their services. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties except Mr. Sogami, who represents the petitioner in SWP No. 41/97. I have also perused the record. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioners have been appointed after promulgation of SRO 64 of 1994. Rule 7 of the said SRO places restriction on engagement of Daily Rated Workers/work Charge employees. Rule 7 is reproduced hereunder: "7. Restriction on engagement of Daily Rated Workers/Work Charge Employees. 1. With effect from the commencement of these rules, No field/subordinate officer shall have the power for engagement of daily rated worker or work charged employee in the department and the existing delegation, if any, in this regard withdrawan; Provided that the competent authority may engage causal labour or seasonal labour in any of the department to be specified by notification from time to time by the Government and such labour shall be on the muster roll for payment of wages and no engagement or appointment order shall be issued. 2. 2. After the commencement of these rules the work charged posts shall be created only by the Administrative Department in consultation with the Finance and Planning Department." 8. The petitioners have been engaged by the Field Officer/Subordinate Officer who have specifically been prohibited to engage a Daily Rated Worker in the department and if any power was earlier vested, that stood withdrawan in terms of Rule 7(1) of the said SRO. The proviso to the rule further provides that the competent authority may engage casual labour or seasonal labour in any department to be specified by notification issued by the Government from time to time and such labour must be on muster roll. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not shown that the Government has issued any notification appointing the respondents as competent authority in the Department vesting with the power to engage causal labour. Therefore the officer who has appointed the petitioners had no authority in law to engage them as Daily Rated Workers. Illegal engagement does not vest any right much less enforceable in the court of law. 9. The petitioner Fiyaz Ahmad Badan has been engaged on muster roll basis for payment of wages. His engagement also cannot be continued as the Dy. Director who has engaged him is not the competent authority notified by the Government by issuance of a notification. 10. The petitioners, therefore, could not make out any case for the relief prayed for. All the three petitions are accordingly dismissed.