The petitioner seeks to quash Order No. 3311-14/Estt-5-SF/Rb dated 6. 9. 2002 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Ramban, respondent No. 4 rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of the service on the strength of having worked as casual labourer. 2. The petitioner admittedly was engaged on 1. 5. 1994 as casual labourer which is evident from the Annexure A enclosed with the petition, a list maintained by respondents in respect of the casual labourers. The petitioner has been shown as engaged on 1. 5. 1994. The petitioner applied for regularization of service. His case was considered and has been rejected vide impugned order on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner is de hors the instructions contained in Govt. Order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31. 1. 1994 and SRO 64 of 1994. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that since he has completed seven years as casual labourer, therefore, is entitled to seek regularization of service. 4. The respondents have filed objections stating therein that the petitioner was engaged during the ban period. He has been dis-engaged w. e. f. 5. 2. 2001 in compliance to Govt. Order No. 144-GAD of 2001 dated 2. 2. 2001 which contemplates that all those casual labourers who have been engaged after 31. 1. 1994 should be dis-engaged. Whether such casual labourer who has been engaged after 31. 1. 1994 is entitled to seek regularization of his service was an issue before the court in a batch of writ petitions which were disposed of on 10.10.2002 (Showkat Ahmad Mir and ors and allied petitions v. State of J&K and others). The Court observed as under:- "1. Whether the petitioners, who have been engaged after issuance of Govt. Order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31. 1. 1994 in violation of para 1(d) thereof and de hors Rule 7 of SRO 64 of 1994, i. e. , after 31st March, 1994, are entitled to seek regularization and continuation. By virtue of para 1(d) of Govt. Order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31. 01. 1994 the practice of engagement of Daily Wagers/Daily Rated Workers has been withdrawn, retaining only the concept of Casual Labourers/seasonal labourers for specific development works and the engagement being on Kuster rolls. By virtue of para 1(d) of Govt. Order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31. 01. 1994 the practice of engagement of Daily Wagers/Daily Rated Workers has been withdrawn, retaining only the concept of Casual Labourers/seasonal labourers for specific development works and the engagement being on Kuster rolls. It is evident therefrom that from 31st January, 1994 the Officers of the State were not having any authority to engage Daily Rated Workers. Only those of the Daily Rated Workers, who fulfilled the eligibility criteria contained in Rule 4 of SRO 64 of 1994, are eligible for seeking regularization of their service. Similarly, Rule 7 places a restriction on engagement of Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged employees after 31st March, 1994. it envisages that no Field/subordinate Officer shall have the power for engagement of Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employees in any department and thus the existing delegation, if any, stood withdrawn. Proviso to this Rule further specifies unambigusouly that the competent authority may engaged casual labour or seasonable labour in any of the departments to be specified by the notification issued from time to time by the government and such labourer shall be on Muster Rolls for payment of wages. It is not made out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the mandate of Rule 7, respondents were having jurisdiction or otherwise competent to engage the petitioners as Daily Rated Workers after the promulgation of SRO 64 of 1994. The petitioners have been engaged by the Field/Subordinate Officers. It is also not made out that in terms of the provision of Rule 7, the Government by notification has nominated or appointed any competent authority in the departments, wherein the petitioners have been engaged, for making such engagements. It is thus made out that the petitioners fall under this category, being not engaged or appointed by an Officer specified as an authority nominated in any notification issued in terms or proviso to Rule 7. engagement of such petitioners, therefore, is in violation of rules and consequently, illegal and such engagement does not create any enforceable right in them. Therefore, they are not found entitled to the relief prayed for by them. engagement of such petitioners, therefore, is in violation of rules and consequently, illegal and such engagement does not create any enforceable right in them. Therefore, they are not found entitled to the relief prayed for by them. It would be advantageous to quote here the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Motilal and others, (1996)7 SCC 481 wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under: -- "11. Thus it is apparent that a daily wager or casual worker against a particular post when acquires a temporary status having worked against the said post for specified number of days does not acquire a right to be regularized against the said post. He can be considered for regularization in accordance with the Rules... " 5. The petitioner admittedly has been engaged after the issuance of the Govt. Order No. 26-F dated 31. 01. 1994, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization of his service. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality. There is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed alongwith connected CMP(s).