JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J.:- 1. Petitioners in writ petition - SWP No. 1085/2012 on hand, upon their selection and recommendation of Senior Selection Committee, were appointed as Senior Basic Nurses, vide Order No. SIMS/1084 of 1984 dated June 18, 1984 and Order No. SIMS/1156 of 1986 dated August 11, 1986 in Sheri-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (for short "respondent institute"). They served respondent institute, as such, for next 5/6 years. In 1990, Senior Selection Committee recommended their appointment as Staff Nurses Grade-1, Recommendation found approval of Chairman, Governing Body of respondent institute and accordingly, vide Office Order No. SIMS-588 of 1990 dated August 30, 1990, petitioners were appointed as Staff Nurse Grade-1. They earned In situ promotion in terms of J&K Civil Services (Higher Standard Pay Scale Scheme) Rules, 1996, after working, as such, for more than nine years and vide order No. SIMS-188(P) of 2000 dated July 3, 2000. Second Insitu Promotion was granted to petitioners vide Order No. SIMS-11(P) of 2009 dated January 14th 2009. Petitioners' case is that they were in the year 2001, asked to work as Nursing Supervisors in their own pay and grade with charge allowance admissible under rules. It is pleaded that necessity to ask petitioners to work as Nursing Supervisors arose in wake of migration of large number of employees, including Nursing staff of respondent Institute from Valley. Petitioners' claim to have been working as Nursing Supervisors since 18th August, 2001. Petitioners are aggrieved that respondent Institute, is avoiding to regularize petitioners against post of Nursing Supervisors in grade of 800042950 (pre-revised) and reluctant to release grade and other emoluments and benefits due to them because of positions they hold with effect from 18th August 2001. It is pointed out that as migrants have not returned to resume duty, respondents are under obligation to regularise petitioners as Nursing Supervisors, on the lines such regularisation has been ordered in other departments. It is averred that petitioners, serving as Nursing Supervisors for last more than a decade, cannot be denied regularisation, more so when Government Order No. 610-GAD of 2006 dated 16th May 2006, provides for such regularisation in accordance with procedure laid down therein. 2. It is averred that petitioners, serving as Nursing Supervisors for last more than a decade, cannot be denied regularisation, more so when Government Order No. 610-GAD of 2006 dated 16th May 2006, provides for such regularisation in accordance with procedure laid down therein. 2. Petitioners, to plead that they are otherwise eligible to be regularised as Nursing Supervisors, point to Order No. 01-IMS of 1996 dated 16th January 1996, No. 28-IMS of 1998 dated 4th November 1998, No. 04-IMS of 1999 dated 23rd January 1999, No. SIMS-112(P) of 2000 dated 3rd July 2000, and N0.86-SKIMS of 2008 dated 30th August 2008, whereby a few of their colleagues, working as Senior Staff Nurse, have been, on recommendations of Senior Selection Committee, appointed as Nursing Supervisors, It is next contended that all those promoted as Nursing Supervisors, vide aforementioned orders from 1996-2008, were not subjected to any interview and promoted on seniority basis and that petitioners cannot be singled out for discriminatory treatment. 3. Petitioners 1, 2, 3 and 7 in SWP No. 1086/2012, were appointed as Senior Basic Nurses in the grade of 875-1400 vide Order No. SIMS-1985 of 1984 dated 25th October 1984. However, petitioners 4&5 were appointed as Graduate Nurses vide Order No. SIMS-1586 of 1986 dated 25th November 1986. They also claim to have earned promotions, while serving in respondent institute, and to have been asked, vide Order No. 22-IMS of 1993 dated October 12, 1993, to work as Nursing Supervisors in their own pay and grade, against positions left vacant because of migration from Valley. They plead that there term was extended from time to time and they have a right to be regularised as Nursing Supervisors because of period they served as Nursing Supervisors and failure of migrants to return to Valley. They admit to have been granted two Insitu Promotions since their initial appointment. Petitioners refer to appointment of their similarly placed colleagues as Nursing Supervisors and insist that respondents are under obligation to regularise petitioners as Nursing Supervisors from the date they were given additional charge of positions they hold. Petitioners, placing reliance on treatment given to employees working on migrant posts in other departments, seek a direction to respondent institute to regularise them as Nursing Supervisors from the date they were asked to hold positions that too grant benefits due to petitioners in wake of their regularisation. 4. Petitioners, placing reliance on treatment given to employees working on migrant posts in other departments, seek a direction to respondent institute to regularise them as Nursing Supervisors from the date they were asked to hold positions that too grant benefits due to petitioners in wake of their regularisation. 4. Respondents, in their reply, admit almost all factual grounds made in petitions. It is admitted that petitioners were appointed as Senior Basic Nurses/Graduate Nurses, promoted as Staff Nurse Grade-I, and also granted two Insitu promotions. It is also admitted that petitioners were asked to discharge duty of Nursing Supervisors from the dates shown in petitions. They, however, oppose relief sought on the ground that petitioners cannot be regularised as Nursing Supervisors in view of non-availability of clear vacancies in Institute. It is insisted that petitioners were asked to work as Nursing Supervisors, against migrant vacancies and as migrant Nursing Supervisors continue to be in place, petitioners cannot be considered for regularisation against posts practically nonexistent and unavailable. Respondents dispute applicability of Government order N0.610-GAD of 2006 dated 16th May 2006, to petitioner as, according to respondents, Government order is restricted in its operation to entry level and not to promotional posts and that Nursing Supervisor post is promotional post and therefore, outside purview of aforesaid Government order. 5. Petitioners, in their rejoinder, dispute stand taken by respondents in opposition to writ petition. It is pleaded that petitioners in two writ petitions, were considered and recommended by Senior Selection Committee for their promotion as Nursing Supervisors in their own pay and grade against migrant vacancies and that out of 30 Staff Nurses Grade-I, so promoted, 22 Staff Nurse Grade-I, have already been regularised as Nursing Supervisors. It is stated that respondents do not have any justification to deny regularisation to petitioners on the ground that such regularisation is to be restricted to migrant vacancies when their 22 colleagues stand regularised against similar vacancies. It is pointed out that a few Nursing Supervisors, including Ms. Shameema Bano and Zainab Parveen, have retired as Nursing Supervisors, leaving two posts vacant, against which petitioners' regularisation can be ordered. Petitioners, refuting stand taken by respondents as regards Government order No. 610-GAD of 2006 dated 16th May 2006, plead that they have been appointed as Nursing Supervisors and Government order, therefore, would be applicable in their case. 6. Shameema Bano and Zainab Parveen, have retired as Nursing Supervisors, leaving two posts vacant, against which petitioners' regularisation can be ordered. Petitioners, refuting stand taken by respondents as regards Government order No. 610-GAD of 2006 dated 16th May 2006, plead that they have been appointed as Nursing Supervisors and Government order, therefore, would be applicable in their case. 6. I have gone through pleadings as also record available on file. I have heard learned counsel for parties. 7. Service conditions of subordinate staff of Sheri-Kasbmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) are regulated by Sheri-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1998. Schedule-I to Recruitment Rules prescribes permanent strength of each of the cadres. Schedule-II to Rules lays down eligibility criteria for appointment and promotion to a post in any class, cadre or grade in the service. No appointment or promotion in terms of Recruitment Rules is to be effected unless eligibility criteria laid down is fulfilled. "Nursing Administration" Class-I of Schedule-II deals with cadre of Nursing Supervisors. In terms of Schedule, Nursing Supervisor carries grade of 8000-12950 and the posts are to be filled up by selection from Class-II from amongst persons having at least five years' service in that class. Senior Staff Nurse in the grade of 7450-11500 constitute Class-II. It follows that posts of Senior Staff Nurse are to be filled up 100% by selection from such of members of Class-III having at least three years' service in the Class to their credit. 8. After brief overview of rule position, let us advert to case set up by parties. Respondents, as a threshold objection to petitioners' claim, dispute their eligibility for the post of Nursing Supervisor. It is contended by learned counsel for respondents that in order to be eligible for post of Nursing Supervisor, an aspirant must be "Senior Staff Nurse" in the grade of 7450-11500 and that none of petitioners is "Senior Staff Nurse", within meaning of Recruitment Rules of 1998. Plea, raised by respondents, pales into insignificance on a closer look at the record. 9. Petitioners, admittedly, were initially appointed as Senior Basic Nurses in grade of 875-1400. They were thereafter, promoted as Staff Nurse Grade-I in grade of 2125-3600. Initial recruitment as well as promotions have been made, before Recruitment Rules of 1998 came into force. A few of petitioners were initially appointed as Graduate Nurses in the pay scale of 1000-1560. 9. Petitioners, admittedly, were initially appointed as Senior Basic Nurses in grade of 875-1400. They were thereafter, promoted as Staff Nurse Grade-I in grade of 2125-3600. Initial recruitment as well as promotions have been made, before Recruitment Rules of 1998 came into force. A few of petitioners were initially appointed as Graduate Nurses in the pay scale of 1000-1560. It appears that before Recruitment Rules of 1998 were framed, different nomenclature was used in Nursing Administration at different levels. Be that as it may, "Nursing Administration" comprises of three levels. At the bottom of hierarchy, is Senior Basic Nurse or Graduate Nurse now called Staff Nurse, Staff Nurse Grade-I or Senior Staff Nurse, occupy Level-II at the top of hierarchy or Level-Ill is Nursing Supervisor. We have not, therefore, to be confused by change in nomenclature and hold petitioners ineligible for post of "Nursing Supervisors" on the ground that position they substantively hold, at present, is known as "Staff Nurse Grade-II" and not Senior Staff Nurse. 10. The above conclusion also finds support from practice followed in respondent institute. In first place, petitioners, on recommendations of Senior Selection Committee, have been admittedly promoted as Nursing Supervisors in their own pay and grade. It is no more open to respondent institute to question their eligibility. This apart, some of their colleagues, promoted as Nursing Supervisors on stop gap basis, have been subsequently promoted as Nursing Supervisors on substantive basis. This closes question of petitioners' eligibility for post of Nursing Supervisors. Reference in this regard may be made to Order No. 01-IMS of 1996 dated 16th January 1996, No. 28-IMS of 1998 dated 4th November 1998, No. 04-IMS of 1999 dated 23rd January 1999, No. SIMS- 112(P) of 2000 dated 3rd July 2000, and No. 86-SKIMS of 2008 dated 30th August 2008. The fact that Staff Nurse Grade-I is same as Senior Staff Nurse appearing in Recruitment Rules of 1998, is also evident from the fact that, in all, Orders, whereby Insitu promotions have been given to petitioners, they are referred as Senior Staff Nurses. Petitioners, therefore, are eligible for promotion as Nursing Supervisors. 11. The next question arising for determination is non-availability of posts at the level of Nursing Supervisors. Respondents insist that even if petitioners are held to be eligible for promotion as Nursing Supervisors, their claim cannot be considered in absence of clear vacancies, against which they seek promotion. Petitioners, therefore, are eligible for promotion as Nursing Supervisors. 11. The next question arising for determination is non-availability of posts at the level of Nursing Supervisors. Respondents insist that even if petitioners are held to be eligible for promotion as Nursing Supervisors, their claim cannot be considered in absence of clear vacancies, against which they seek promotion. It is pointed out that posts, against which petitioners were appointed on stop gap basis in their own pay and grade, are occupied by Nursing Supervisors, who, because of turbulence, have migrated to Jammu. 12. Learned counsel for respondents argues, and rightly so, that petitioners cannot be promoted against unavailable posts. It is next contended that petitioners, in any case, are not put to disadvantageous position inasmuch as they have been, during last more than a decade, not only given Insitu promotions as admissible under J&K Civil Services (Higher Standard Pay Scale Scheme) Rules, 1996, but also charge allowance with effect from the date they have been asked to shoulder responsibility of Nursing Supervisors. There is substance in argument advanced by learned counsel for respondent institute. Petitioners, in any case, have to stand in queue and wait for their consideration for promotion as Nursing Supervisors. Let us assume a situation, where migrant Nursing Supervisors would not have migrated to Jammu. They in such case would have continued to occupy post of Nursing Supervisors, till their retirement or promotion, if any, available under Rules. Petitioners have to feel contented with working as I/c Nursing Supervisors/Senior Staff Nurses, on substantive basis get a grade promotion on stagnating in the post for nine years, and get regularized against the posts, they occupy on stop gap basis, once the posts become available. 13. Petitioner's, to reinforce their claim, seek to draw support from Government order No. 610-GAD of 2006 dated 16th May 2006. In terms of Government order migrant substitutes working in Education Department, Higher Education Department, Youth Services & Sports, Cooperative Department and Finance Department, as detailed in 'Annexure' to Government order, are to be regularised against posts held, without waiting for posts to get vacated due to retirement or promotion of migrant employees or due to any other reason. Reliance on aforementioned Government order is misplaced for reason that it applies only to migrant substitutes, working in Departments mentioned in 'Annexure' to the Order. Respondent Institute does not find mention in said 'Annexure'. Reliance on aforementioned Government order is misplaced for reason that it applies only to migrant substitutes, working in Departments mentioned in 'Annexure' to the Order. Respondent Institute does not find mention in said 'Annexure'. Secondly, it refers to posts at entry level. The object of Order, obviously, is not to postpone regularisation of substitutes at entry level and let Damocles sword hang on their heads for long. The order does not apply to promotional posts as in case of stop gap promotion on migrant vacancies, promotee continues to hold his post on substantive basis, without any chance to expose him to any uncertainty. In the present case petitioners hold post of Senior Staff Nurse in the grade of 7450-11500 (pre-revised) on substantive basis, have earned two Insitu promotions and are also drawing charge allowance. Petitioners, therefore, cannot insist on their regularisation against unavailable posts under Government order No. 610-GAD of 2006 dated 16th May 2006. 14. Above conclusion, however, should not stand in way of petitioners' regularisation against Nursing Supervisors' vacancies available as on date because of retirement of migrant as well as non-migrant Nursing Supervisors. Petitioners have already gone through selection process and Order, whereby they were promoted as Nursing Supervisors on stop gap basis, was passed on recommendation of Senior Selection Committee. Petitioners, obviously, have not to go through any fresh selection process for their promotion as Nursing Supervisors. Petitioners through their rejoinder have brought to the notice of Court that two of Nursing Supervisors namely Shameema Bano and Zainab Parveen, have retired on superannuation and posts, left vacant, are yet to be filled up. There may be many other such instances, where posts at the level of Nursing Supervisors have become available. 15. Before parting with order, I find it necessary to point out that petitioners' plight must not be, theirs alone. There is a possibility that employees of respondent institute, working as migrant substitutes at entry level, may be exposed to similar situation. Petitioners, admittedly, have been working as Nursing Supervisors on stop gap basis for a period, stretching over 14-21 years. Their colleagues, also promoted on stop gap basis alongside them, vide Order No. 22-IMS of 1993 dated October 12th, 1993, and a few orders, thereafter, have been regularised as Nursing Supervisors, a little less than 20 years back. Petitioners, admittedly, have been working as Nursing Supervisors on stop gap basis for a period, stretching over 14-21 years. Their colleagues, also promoted on stop gap basis alongside them, vide Order No. 22-IMS of 1993 dated October 12th, 1993, and a few orders, thereafter, have been regularised as Nursing Supervisors, a little less than 20 years back. First such batch was promoted on substantive basis vide Order No. 01-IMS of 1996 dated 16th January 1996. The order has been followed by series of orders, copies whereof are appended as Annexure F to J (SWP No. 1085/2012) till 2008. Petitioners, therefore, have been, in effect, denied consideration for promotion on substantive basis for more than two decades, only because of non-availability of vacancies at promotional level. It is no more res integra that right to be considered for promotion is an integral part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16, Constitution of India. Least that is expected of the respondent institute and in particular its Director, heading institute is, to immediately move a proposal for creation of posts at the level of Nursing Supervisors equivalent, at least, to the posts held by migrant Nursing Supervisors, so that petitioners and other similarly circumstanced employees of institute, are not denied promotion and allowed to stagnate for almost 3/4 of their service career. Respondent institute should also devise a Scheme, similar to one, provided under Government order No. 610-GAD of 2006 dated 16th May 2006, to regularise migrant substitutes working in Institute at entry level. 17. For reasons discussed, writ petitions i.e. SWP No. 1085/2012 and SWP No. 1086/2012, are disposed of as under:- i. Respondents shall accord consideration to petitioners' promotion as Nursing Supervisors in the grade of 8000-12950 (pre-revised) in the order they appear in the Order(s), whereby they were promoted on stop gap basis, against available vacancies of Nursing Supervisors and complete exercise within four weeks. ii. Respondents shall initiate proposal for creation of vacancies at the level of Nursing Supervisors, at least, equivalent to number of migrant Nursing Supervisors, so that petitioners can be accorded consideration against such posts and not made to retire as Senior Staff Nurses Grade-I. iii. ii. Respondents shall initiate proposal for creation of vacancies at the level of Nursing Supervisors, at least, equivalent to number of migrant Nursing Supervisors, so that petitioners can be accorded consideration against such posts and not made to retire as Senior Staff Nurses Grade-I. iii. Respondents shall consider devising a scheme on lines of Government Order No. 610-GAD of 2006 dated 16th May 2006, for regularisation of migrant substitutes, working at entry level without waiting for posts to get vacated due to retirement or promotion of migrant employee or due to any other reason. iv. Disposed of.