JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. State Cabinet on 23rd October 2006 took a policy decision, being Cabinet Decision No. 248/14 dated 23rd October 2006, to engage all unemployed Agriculture Graduates, who were unemployed as on October 2006, at monthly stipend of Rs. 1500/-. The decision got reflected in Government Order No. 20-Agri of 2007 dated 6th February 2007. Government order, while according sanction to engagement of Agriculture Graduates unemployed as on October 2006 under Rehbar-i-Ziraat Scheme effective from April, 2007, at a monthly stipend of Rs. 1500/-, laid down terms and conditions, subject to which benefit to unemployed Agriculture Graduates was extended. Petitioners in writ petitions on hand as well as respondents 4 to 97 in SWP No. 2468/2013, are beneficiaries of Scheme and were engaged as Rehbar-i-Ziraat in terms of Government Order No. 20-Agri of 2007, dated 6th February 2007. State Government vide Government Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10th August 2011, adopted Policy for regularization of Rehbar-i-Ziraat Agriculture Graduates. Government Order also provided for sanction to creation of 2642 posts of Village Agriculture Extension Assistants in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4200. Posts were to be created in three phases i.e. in first phase 881 in first phase, 881 in second phase, and 880 in final phase. Posts were to be utilised for regularisation of eligible/selected Rehbar-i-Ziraat candidates with effect from 1st April 2014 (phase-I), 1st April 2015 (phase-II), and 1st April 2016 (phase-III). Regularisation process in terms of Government order was to be implemented only after proper physical verification of Rehbar-i-Ziraat, engaged in Department and also verification of their degrees obtained from various Universities and Institutions. As a sequel to Government Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10th August 2011, came Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013. Sanction was accorded vide aforementioned order to constitute two Divisional Level Committees for finalisation of Rehbar-i-Ziraat lists for regularisation in three phases set out in Government Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10th August 2011. Government Order also incorporated terms of reference on the basis whereof Rehbar-i-Ziraat lists were to be finalised. Condition No. 2 laid down in Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013, provided that period spent on study/project shall not be counted while computing seven years' service for eligible candidate for regularisation. Government Order also incorporated terms of reference on the basis whereof Rehbar-i-Ziraat lists were to be finalised. Condition No. 2 laid down in Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013, provided that period spent on study/project shall not be counted while computing seven years' service for eligible candidate for regularisation. It may be recalled that in terms of policy for regularisation of Rehbar-i-Ziraat Agriculture Graduates, accorded sanction vide Government Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10th August 2011, only such of Rehbar-i-Ziraat Agriculture Graduates are to be considered for regularisation who have rendered satisfactory and continuous service of seven years from date of registration to be certified in writing by Chief Agriculture Officer under whose charge these Rehbar-i-Ziraats are deployed. Clause 5 sub clause 5 of the policy provided that period spent on pursuing higher studies, would not be counted while computing seven years, uninterrupted satisfactory service, necessary for regularization. Net result of Condition 5(5) of the Policy for regularization of R-e-Zs approved under Government order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10.08.2011 and Condition No. 2 incorporated in Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013, would be that candidates initially engaged as Rehbar-i-Ziraat, who are found to have spent whole or part of period of their engagement on study/project, would be denied regularisation and period on study/project would not be counted while computing period of service rendered in Department. 2. Petitioners in all writ petitions on hand, have been engaged as Rehbar-i-Ziraat under Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013. They, on date of registration in terms of policy and engagement as Rehbar-i-Ziraat, were either pursuing higher studies or working on agriculture related project under different organisations, like Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, etc. They, in the event period spent on higher studies/project is excluded, would be deprived of benefit of regularisation under policy reflected in aforementioned Government order inasmuch as they would not be in a position to fulfill Condition No. 2 - eligibility criteria, laid down under Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013. 3. Petitioners, seek quashment of condition No. 5(5) of regularization policy & Condition No. 2 in Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013. 3. Petitioners, seek quashment of condition No. 5(5) of regularization policy & Condition No. 2 in Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013. They seek a direction commanding respondents to count period of seven years' service from the date of their initial registration/engagement i.e. Government Order No. 20-Agri of 2007, dated 6th February 2007, (30.03.2007), irrespective of period spent by them to pursue higher course in agriculture or spent on any project related to agriculture. 4. Petitioners' case is that they were either pursuing higher course like M.Sc., Ph.D. on the date they were engaged as Rehbar-i-Ziraat or were working in projects in SKUAST (K), SKUAST (J) or Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture; that after they got themselves registered in terms of Government Order No. 20-Agri of 2007, dated 6th February 2007, with concerned Chief Agriculture Officers, they approached State Government with request to allow them to pursue higher courses or work on projects they were undertaking. It is pleaded that their request was considered by competent authority and the authority on March 15, 2007 took a decision to permit those of Rehbar-i-Ziraat, who were pursuing higher course or working on a project to continue with higher studies or project, as the case may be. Policy decision taken by State Government is said to have led to issuance of Circular No. Agri/NG/53/2002-Genl, dated 18th April 2007, whereby petitioners were permitted to continue with their studies/project. It is pointed out that circular also made it clear that Rehbar-e-Ziraat, pursuing higher studies or working on a project, shall not lose their registration but will not be entitled to monthly stipend for the period they spent in pursuing higher studies or working on a project. 5. It is next pleaded that some of Rehbar-i-Ziraat, who on the date of registration/engagement as Rehbar-i-Ziraat, were neither pursuing higher studies nor working on any project, got admission in higher course or associated with a project subsequent to their registration, with the permission of competent authority and continued to pursue higher studies/work on projects, till they obtained degrees or projects were completed. Petitioners claim to have resumed their duty as Rehbar-i-Ziraat after they completed higher studies/project. Petitioners claim to have resumed their duty as Rehbar-i-Ziraat after they completed higher studies/project. Petitioners' case is that State Government, for first time, while adopting policy for regularisation of Rehbar-i-Ziraat vide Government Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10th August 2011, restricted benefit of regularization to Rehbar-i-Ziraat, who had rendered satisfactory and continuous service of seven years from the date of registration. However, decision, according to petitioners, was not notified to them and resultantly such of them, who were yet to complete their higher course/projects, continued to pursue higher studies or work on such projects. It is pleaded that State Government, even after Government Order No. 235 - Agri of 2011, dated 10th August 2011, relieved a number of Rehbar-i-Ziraat, who had earlier reported to Department on completion of their courses/projects, to work on projects undertaken by other organisations. Reference in this regard is made to communication No. Agri/Estt/Gaz/5114-21, dated 25th November 2013, whereby some Rehbar-i-Ziraats were asked to report to Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture and Order No. Agri/NG/53/2002/Part-II, Part file dated 24th September 2013, whereby State Government, acceding to request made by Director, Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, accorded approval to continuation of some of Rehbar-i-Ziraat, working in the Institute to complete their assignment. 6. It is pleaded that petitioners came to know about decision taken by Government only when a Notice was published in 26th August 2013, issue of local Daily, directing Rehbar-i-Ziraats, working outside Agriculture/pursuing higher studies, to report to Department within fourteen days from the date Notice was published. It is averred Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013, incorporated Condition No. 2 and reflecting decision that period spent on study/projects, would not be counted, while computing seven years' continuous service, to make a Rehbar-i-Ziraat eligible for regularisation, irrespective of nature of permission, a few weeks after Notice in local Daily was published. Petitioners insist that Clause 5 of Policy dated 10th August 2011, as also Condition No. 2 of Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013, are in gross conflict with Circular No. Agri/NG/53/2002-Genl dated 18th April 2007, and make an unreasonable classification, and are therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India. Petitioners insist that Clause 5 of Policy dated 10th August 2011, as also Condition No. 2 of Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013, are in gross conflict with Circular No. Agri/NG/53/2002-Genl dated 18th April 2007, and make an unreasonable classification, and are therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India. It is pleaded that Clause 5(5) of Policy Decision dated 10th August 2011, and Condition No. 2 of Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013, are liable to be quashed and respondents directed to count period spent by them while pursuing higher studies or working on projects outside Agriculture Department, while according consideration to their regularisation. 7. Respondents 1 to 3, in their reply, admit, almost, all factual averments made in petition. It is, however, contended that Circular No. Agri/NG/53/2002-Genl, dated 18th April 2007, applied only to those Rehbar-i-Ziraats, who were working on projects or pursuing higher course on the date they were registered/engaged, as such, i.e. 23.10.2006/06.02.2007. Stand taken is that Circular did not apply to such all Rehbar-i-Ziraat, who joined project work or higher course, after order dated 06.02.2007. Respondents 1 to 3 clarify that out of 108 petitioners, only 21 were working on projects outside Agriculture Department or pursuing higher studies as on 23.10.2006/06.02.2007. It is stated that in Government Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10th August 2011, itself, it was made clear that period spent on pursuing higher studies would not count towards prescribed tenure. It is stated that Cabinet Decision was given due publicity, published in local Newspapers on 5th August 2011, and petitioners, therefore, cannot feign ignorance about requirement of seven years' uninterrupted and continuous service. It is stated that order No. Agri/NG/53/2002/Part-II, Part File dated 24th September 2013, whereby Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture was allowed to retain 19 Rehbar-e-Ziraat, was rescinded vide Order No. Agri/NTG/2002/Part-II, Part File dated 24th October 2013, and Director, Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, asked to relieve Rehbar-i-Ziraats, enabling them to join back parent department. Condition No. 02 in Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013, according to respondents, has been introduced with proper consultation with General Administration Department and Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs, and therefore, does not deserve to be set-aside. Condition No. 02 in Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013, according to respondents, has been introduced with proper consultation with General Administration Department and Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs, and therefore, does not deserve to be set-aside. Respondents deny all other averments made in petition and insist that requirement of seven years' continuous and uninterrupted service as Rehbar-i-Ziraat, was valid and Condition No. 2 in Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013, reiterated condition 5(5) in Government order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10th August2011. It is denied that orders impugned violated Article 14 and 16 Constitution of India or for that matter any other constitutional provision. 8. Respondents 4 to 94 oppose writ petition on the grounds identical to grounds urged by respondents 1 to 3 in their reply. Respondents 4 to 94 take a firm stand that Circular No. Agri/NG/53/2002-Genl, dated 18th April 2007, was applicable to those of petitioners, who on the date of their registration/engagement as Rehbar-i-Ziraats, were pursuing higher courses or working on a project, and concession was restricted to such of persons. They identify petitioners 3, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 40, 49, 58, 63, 64, 68 and 75, amongst petitioners, who on the date of registration/engagement were working on projects/pursuing higher courses, therefore, would be entitled to benefit whatever available under Circular No. Agri/NG/53/2002-Genl, dated 18th April 2007. It is insisted that all other petitioners would not be entitled to get period spent on pursuing studies/working on project, computed while assessing their service. Some of petitioners are said to have proceeded on their own for higher studies or taken up other assignments and therefore, cannot be given both benefits i.e. counting service rendered on such assignments as part of service under Condition No. 5 of Decision and credit on account of Degrees obtained. 9. Petitioners, in their rejoinder, reiterate stand taken in writ petitions. 10. I have gone through the pleadings and heard learned counsel for parties. 11. To understand dynamics of the controversy involved, it is imperative to have a clear idea about the nature of Rehbar-e-Ziraats (R-e-Z) Scheme conceived in 2006 and launched vide Government Order No. 20-Agri of 2007, dated 6.2.2007. It would be advantageous to compare Rehbar-e-Ziraat (Agriculture Guide) Scheme with Rehbar-e-Taleem (Teaching Guide) Scheme launched in the year 2000. 12. 11. To understand dynamics of the controversy involved, it is imperative to have a clear idea about the nature of Rehbar-e-Ziraats (R-e-Z) Scheme conceived in 2006 and launched vide Government Order No. 20-Agri of 2007, dated 6.2.2007. It would be advantageous to compare Rehbar-e-Ziraat (Agriculture Guide) Scheme with Rehbar-e-Taleem (Teaching Guide) Scheme launched in the year 2000. 12. Comparisons at times are helpful in understanding salient features of a scheme. The comparison be known as R-e-Z and R-e-T Schemes, would also be appropriate as it finds an note put up to the cabinet in connection with regularisation of R-e-Zs. The State Government in the year 2000 launched a scheme under name and style of Rehbar-e-Taleem (R-e-T). Though the main purpose of the scheme was to achieve the goal of universalization of elementary education yet generation of employment avenues for educated unemployed youth was one of the collateral benefits of the scheme. The Scheme launched vide Govt. Order No. 396-Edu of 2000, laid down eligibility criteria for engagement of R-e-Ts, mode and manner of selection, honorarium to be paid, mechanism of its disbursement and more importantly regularisation of a R-e-T. The R-e-T under the scheme is to be selected by Village Level Committee, is to be paid honorarium of Rs. 1500/- per month and on continuous, uninterrupted and satisfactory service of five years earns regularisation and appointment as General Line Teacher. 13. A candidate deciding to join as R-e-T is therefore well aware of the course he is to follow till he gets regularised and substantively appointed against a post under the Government. He is also aware of factors that may deprive him of regularisation. The scheme also provides job profile of R-e-T. He is to teach at primary and upper primary level alongside the General Line teachers. 14. R-e-Z scheme on the other hand is exclusively focussed on creation of employment avenues for unemployed agriculture graduates. The Government Order No. 20-Agri of 2007, dated 6.2.2007 issued as a sequel to a Cabinet Decision No. 248/14, dated 23.10.2006 therefore uses phraseology different from one used in Government order whereby R-e-T scheme was launched. It provides for registration of all unemployed agriculture graduates as on October 2006 with Chief Agriculture Officers of their concerned Districts. The registered unemployed graduates were to receive a monthly stipend of RS. 1500/-. It provides for registration of all unemployed agriculture graduates as on October 2006 with Chief Agriculture Officers of their concerned Districts. The registered unemployed graduates were to receive a monthly stipend of RS. 1500/-. The Chief Agriculture Officers were to send list of registered unemployed agriculture graduates with verified testimonials to respective Directors who in turn were to forward the list to the Administrative Departments by the end of first week of March 2007. Benefit under the Government order was restricted to such of unemployed agriculture graduates who were not performing any Government service whether on contract or ad-hoc basis on the date of their registration and had received degrees from Institutions recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The registration was not to confer any right to claim any regular appointment. 15. The Government Order No. 20-Agri of 2007, dated 06.02.2007 unlike the Government order whereby R-e-T scheme was launched, did not make a promise of regularisation to unemployed agriculture graduates registered with Chief Agriculture Officers of respective Districts pursuant to the order. It also did not lay down job profile of unemployed agriculture graduates after such registration. The emphasis was to provide some relief to unemployed agriculture graduates till they were able to find employment with the State Government or elsewhere. It again did not exclude the unemployed agriculture graduates pursuing any higher course or working on a research project, from the registration and consequential benefits. The exclusion from the benefit of the scheme, if any, was restricted to "Government service" whether on contract or ad-hoc basis. It would be advantageous to reproduce relevant part of the aforementioned Government order: "1. All the unemployed Agriculture Graduates will register themselves with the Chief Agriculture Officers of their concerned district. 2. Candidates shall execute an agreement with Chief Agriculture Officer stating that they are not performing any government service whether on contract basis or ad-hoc. 3. This engagement shall not confer any right to claim a regular appointment." The registration of unemployed Agriculture graduates and their engagement as R-e-Zs did not involve any selection process, scrutiny or merit. 16. The order dated 06.02.2007 was followed by Agriculture Order No. 75-Estt of 2007, dated 30.3.2007 whereby 1331 registered unemployed agriculture graduates were engaged as R-e-Zs in the Department of Agriculture at monthly stipend of Rs. 1500/- w.e.f. 1.4.2007. 16. The order dated 06.02.2007 was followed by Agriculture Order No. 75-Estt of 2007, dated 30.3.2007 whereby 1331 registered unemployed agriculture graduates were engaged as R-e-Zs in the Department of Agriculture at monthly stipend of Rs. 1500/- w.e.f. 1.4.2007. In terms of the order the benefit of engagement was made unavailable to anyone working in any Department/Institution or semi Government Institution. The order did not make mention of the registered unemployed agriculture graduates pursuing higher studies and working on research projects. 17. The fact that the Government orders dated 06.02.2007 and 30.3.2007 where not to stand in the way of unemployed agriculture graduates pursuing higher studies or working on research projects and that the benefit under the scheme was not to be denied to them, though implicit in the two Government order also found expression in Circular No. Agri/NG/53/2002-Genl. dated 18.4.2007. The circular made it clear that unemployed agriculture graduates engaged as R-e-Z pursuant to Government Order No. 06.02.2007 and 30.3.2007 pursuing higher studies with SKUAST or Agriculture Research Institutes, engaged on contract as trainees with the Department under technology mission or with related institutes like fruit processing or post harvest infrastructure would be "allowed to continue in other organisations/projects/research etc., subject to their applications in this behalf. The circular further provided that "they would continue to be registered as R-e-Z under the scheme but will no be entitled for the monthly stipend, for the period such agriculture/horticulture graduates remain on aforementioned engagement". It would be apt to-reproduce the reasons given in the circular in support of such decision: "A view has been taken that allowing such agriculture graduates to continue in their present assignment would enlarge their experience and learning and would therefore strengthen the human capacity available for horticulture and agriculture sectors." 18. There is lot of justification for the decision taken and reflected in the two Government orders and aforementioned circular. It is to be understood the focus of R-e-Z scheme as initially conceptualized, was to provide some succour to unemployed agriculture graduates in the form of stipend so that they were able to sail through difficult times till they found employment commensurate with their qualification. No Government could afford to thwart research in agriculture science or wean away candidates from institutes/research schemes or academic pursuits or the research work. An R-e-Z did not hold a post under the Government. No Government could afford to thwart research in agriculture science or wean away candidates from institutes/research schemes or academic pursuits or the research work. An R-e-Z did not hold a post under the Government. In terms of Scheme he would receive meagre amount styled as stipend or "money to live on" till he remained unemployed. If the Government decided to deny the benefit under the scheme to unemployed agriculture graduates pursuing higher studies or working on research projects, such unemployed agriculture graduates would have been compelled to leave such higher courses/research projects midway at the cost of research in agriculture and allied sciences. Such a decision would have been harsh and against public interest. The decision to allow such unemployed agriculture graduates to pursue higher studies/work on research projects without entitlement to the stipend, cannot be faulted for any ground. The circular therefore has not been questioned till date. 19. The plea that Circular is restricted in its scope to unemployed agriculture graduates who were pursuing higher studies/working on research projects on the date Circular was issued and R-e-Zs who joined higher studies or research projects after the date of circular, are not to reap any benefit from it, is bereft of any merit as it runs contrary to the very rationale of the decision spelt out in the Government orders and Circular not to impede academic excellence and research work. This apart the circular from the date it was issued i.e. 18.4.2007 has been understood by those at the helm of affairs as one leaving scope for permission to R-e-Zs to join higher studies or research projects. Reference in this regard may be made to the orders of Chief Agriculture Officers issued from time to time according promotion to R-e-Zs intending to join higher studies/research projects, to join higher academic courses/research projects. The fact that the Circular was interpreted as one leaving room for such permission and acted upon accordingly is also discernable from the communications exchanged between various organisations engaged in research work and the Administrative Department. The fact that the Circular was interpreted as one leaving room for such permission and acted upon accordingly is also discernable from the communications exchanged between various organisations engaged in research work and the Administrative Department. To illustrate Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture (CITH) vide communication dated 3.9.2013 requested Commissioner Secretary to Government Agriculture Production Department to allow R-e-Zs to continue with Horticulture Technology Mission (HTM), Work Projects on ICAR/National Saffron Mission etc, run by CITH, emphasising that it may not be in the interest of the State's Agricultural-Horticultural activities to leave the assignment half way and prejudicially affect target projects. The State Government responded to the Communication Vide No. Agri/NG/53/2002/Part-II, dated 24.9.2013 and conveyed approval to continuation of R-e-Zs working in CITH till they complete their assignment (Annexure-R-I). Though the approval was later withdrawn to facilitate time bound regularisation of R-e-Zs, yet the communication dated 24.10.2013 does not displace the conclusion that Circular was understood and acted upon at all levels as one allowing R-e-Zs to follow higher academic pursuits or join research projects at the cost of losing stipend otherwise payable under the scheme and the order dated 6.2.2007/30.3.2007. It is rightly argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioners that true import of the Circular is to be understood, in light of mode and manner it was taken to be and implemented by those, required to implement it. Reliance in this regard on case reported as 2011 (5) SCC 214 is well placed. 20. The argument that as the circular dated 18.4.2007 does not reflect decision taken by the Government, in as much as it has not been issued by the order of "Government of Jammu & Kashmir" and therefore cannot be pressed into service to challenge clause 5(5) of Government order dated 10.08.2011 and Condition No. 2 of government order dated 28.11.2013, is far from convincing. A Circular without the expression "By order of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir" at its foot may not have flavour of a Government order and may not create enforceable rights in favour of any person, yet it regulates the working of a Department to which it pertains and the decision making process at different levels in such department/institution. 21. A Circular without the expression "By order of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir" at its foot may not have flavour of a Government order and may not create enforceable rights in favour of any person, yet it regulates the working of a Department to which it pertains and the decision making process at different levels in such department/institution. 21. True that a R-e-Z relying on the Circular, may not have enforceable right to insist on permission to pursue higher course, but the Circular all the same does regulate the conditions subject to which a R-e-Z may be allowed to join higher course or a research project. Absence of expression "by order of Government of Jammu & Kashmir" at the foot of the Circular, does not strip it of sanctity or reduce it to a piece of paper. It continues to regulate procedure to be followed regarding subject covered by it. The expression by the order of the Government as rightly pointed out by Ld. counsel for petitioners, merely insulates it against an action wherein it is disputed that it was issued by the Government and absence of the expression does not render a circular or set of instructions meaningless. There can be no disagreement with Ld. counsel for the private respondents, that circular is not binding on the Government. However, it does not imply that Government and its functionaries can be debarred from acting on the Circular and deciding the matter within purview of the Circular in accordance with the instructions laid down therein. 22. The Government Order No. 20-Agri of 2007, dated 06.02.2007 wherein as already pointed out registration/engagement as R-e-Z is denied to such of unemployed agriculture graduates who are "performing any Government service whether on contract basis or ad-hoc" and not to the unemployed agriculture graduates who are pursuing higher studies or working on a research project. 22. The Government Order No. 20-Agri of 2007, dated 06.02.2007 wherein as already pointed out registration/engagement as R-e-Z is denied to such of unemployed agriculture graduates who are "performing any Government service whether on contract basis or ad-hoc" and not to the unemployed agriculture graduates who are pursuing higher studies or working on a research project. The Circular dated 18.4.2007, the orders passed from time to time on the basis of aforementioned circular allowing R-e-Zs to join higher studies or work on research projects as also the fact that the R-e-Zs pursuing higher studies or working on research projects, were for the first time vide notice published on 26.08.2013 asked to report to the Agriculture Department at no point of time before said date together constitute a promise to the petitioners pursuing higher studies or working on research projects registered as R-e-Z that their pursuing higher studies or working on projects shall not stand in their way to be considered for regularisation alongside such of their colleagues who did not pursue higher studies or work on research projects. 23. It is pertinent to point out that in clause 5(5) of the "Policy for Regularisation of R-e-Z Agriculture Gradates" sanctioned vide Government Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10.8.2011 pursuant to Cabinet Decision No. 139/18/2011 dated 4.8.2011, it is only a period spent on "pursuing higher studies" that is not to count towards their prescribed tenure. It does not include time spent on projects. In terms of Government order No. 378-Agri dated 28.11.2013, the period spent on projects is also directed not to be counted while computing seven years of service for the purpose of regularisation. The Government Order No. 378 of Agri of 2013, dated 28.11.2013 therefore travels beyond policy approved by the Government vide Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10.8.2011. 24. In terms of Government order No. 378-Agri dated 28.11.2013, the period spent on projects is also directed not to be counted while computing seven years of service for the purpose of regularisation. The Government Order No. 378 of Agri of 2013, dated 28.11.2013 therefore travels beyond policy approved by the Government vide Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10.8.2011. 24. The Circular has been interpreted to leave scope for R-e-Zs pursuing higher studies or get associated with research projects so frequently that 07 of the petitioners in SWP No. 2468/2013 pursuing higher studies at the time of registration were allowed to continue the studies, 13 of the petitioners in said petition pursuing higher studies at the time of registration were allowed to get associated with the research projects after completing their degrees, 09 of the petitioners in the writ petition working on different projects at the time of registration where allowed at continue on the projects, 39 of the petitioners in the writ petition were allowed to get associated with projects after their registration and 35 of the petitioners were allowed to go for higher studies after their registration. The aforementioned Government Orders, Circular dated 18.4.2007 and orders passed by senior officers in the Department and the practice followed, is to be held to have given rise to legitimate expectations to the petitioners that they would not be tripped up, penalized or deprived of benefit only because they opted for higher studies or get associated with research projects. 25. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners to buttress their argument that the official respondents were stopped from ignoring the period spent on pursuing higher studies or working on research projects on the principal of "promissory estoppel and legitimate expectations" rely on a number of reported cases. However, the principle of law is so well settled that it is not necessary to load the judgment with a detailed reference to case law cited by either of the counsel. What emerges from the case law on the subject is that the Government would be estopped from wriggling out of a promise or assurance, express or implied made where person/persons acting on the promise change his/their position provided the promise made or assurance extended is not arbitrary, unreasonable or in violation of statutory rules. Even conduct or past practice without any express order or representation may constitute estoppels unless it overrides public interest. Even conduct or past practice without any express order or representation may constitute estoppels unless it overrides public interest. The expectation in any case must be reasonable and not irrational, unwarranted. The endgame is to avoid injustice and promote justice, equity and fair play. 26. In the present case as pointed out above, an assurance was extended to the petitioners and the petitioners made to change their position. Had the petitioners been denied permission to continue with higher studies/research projects and the Circular dated 18.4.2007 not issued, and such permission was denied thereafter, the petitioners would have an opportunity to decide whether to continue or opt for higher studies/research projects, at the cost of loosing benefit whatever was to come their way under the Government Order No. 20-Agri of 2007, dated 06.02.2007 or to continue with the Department and receive the monthly stipend of Rs. 1500/-. Petitioners encouraged and emboldened by Government Order dated 06.02.2007 Circular dated 18.4.2007 and orders issued thereafter, changed their position and continued with/joined higher studies or research projects. The Government realising that petitioners were encouraged by aforementioned Government order, Circular and orders passed thereafter to continue with/join higher courses/projects found it necessary to issue notice on 26.8.2013 asking the petitioners and other R-e-Zs pursuing higher studies or working on such projects to report back to the Agriculture Department. 27. It is pertinent to point out that posts of Village Agriculture Extension Assistants created vide government order dated 10.8.2011 do not find place in the J&K Agriculture Recruitment Rules, as the posts have been created by an executive order and are yet to be encadered. The posts are being filled up in accordance with the executive order by regularisation and the assurance extended cannot be labelled as one in violation of recruitment rules. 28. The respondents 1 to 3 against above backdrop cannot withdraw from the assurance made and put a condition in the policy for regularisation of R-e-Zs approved vide Government Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10.08.2011 or Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28.11.2013 excluding the period spent on higher studies or research work, while computing the period of seven years continuous service for regularisation in terms of the aforementioned orders. 29. 29. The plea that petitioners in absence of challenge to the requirement of "seven years service" in terms of para-5(3)(ii) of "policy for regularisation of R-e-Z agriculture graduates" approved vide Government order No. 235-Agri of 2011 dated 10.8.2011 and para 2 of Government order No. 378-Agri of 2013 dated 28.11.2013, cannot question the decision as regards exclusion of the period spent on higher studies/research work cannot be accepted. Petitioners, we need to be reminded do not question eligibility criteria for regularisation of R-e-Zs as laid down in aforementioned Government orders. Their case is that they were allowed to pursue higher studies in Agriculture/Horticulture or to work on research projects and that the experience gained by them while pursuing higher studies or working on research projects is not less than the experience gained, if any, by R-e-Zs while being associated with the Agriculture Department and above all, they were permitted to go for higher studies/work on research projects by none else by the official respondents. They maintain that they and those of R-e-Zs constitute one class and any discrimination would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 Constitution of India. They referring to the memorandum submitted to the Cabinet point out that R-e-Zs admittedly did not perform any "productive or substantive job" and cannot be allowed to steal march over them, ignoring the experience gained by them while pursuing higher courses or working on projects. Petitioners without disputing the requirement as regards length of service, insist that the period spent by them on pursuing higher studies or on research projects deserves to be counted while computing their service. The case set up by petitioners as already discussed is full of merit. 30. Though petitioners have restricted challenge to para-5(5) policy for regularisation of R-e-Zs Agriculture graduates vide Government Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10.8.2011 and para-2 of Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28.11.2013, yet a feeble attempt has been made while advancing arguments that the cut off date for weight age on account of high studies ought not to have been fixed as 31 October 2006. There is no merit in the argument. There is no merit in the argument. Petitioners who have continued with higher studies/research projects after registration as R-e-Zs or have proceeded on higher studies/research or got associated with or worked on research projects after their registration, cannot ask for a weight age on account of higher qualification acquired after their registration as R-e-Zs. Petitioners cannot have it both ways i.e. insist on getting the period spent on higher studies or projects counted while computing seven years service and also ask for extra weight age in the qualification required. This is bound to put such of the R-e-Zs who continued to be associated with the Agriculture Department to disadvantage and would be harsh and unfair. In case petitioners without pleading such a case ask for such weight age, R-e-Zs are also to be given weight age for the period they spent with the Department. The plea not raised in the petition and the para-1(1) that the Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28.11.2013 not assailed, cannot be accepted. 31. For the reasons discussed, it would not be permissible to exclude the period spent by the petitioners on pursuing higher education or working on research projects while computing seven years service for regularisation of R-e-Zs in terms of aforementioned Government orders. The writ petition therefore merits to be allowed and Condition No. 5 of para 5 of the Policy for regularisation of 'Rehbar-e-Ziraat' agriculture graduates, approved by Government Vide Government Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10th August 2011 and condition No. 2 in Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013, set aside. 32. Viewed thus the writ petition is allowed and by a writ of certiorari Condition No. 5 of Para 5 of the Policy for regularisation of 'Rehbar-e-Ziraat' agriculture graduates, approved by Government Vide Government Order No. 235-Agri of 2011, dated 10th August 2011, and Condition No. 2 in Government Order No. 378-Agri of 2013, dated 28th November 2013, quashed. Resultantly respondent 1 and 2 shall proceed with regularisation of R-e-Zs in accordance with aforesaid Government orders, taking into account the period spent by the petitioners on higher studies/while working on projects. Disposed of.