JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. Since a common question of law and fact is involved in all these petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners, who claimed to have been engaged as Gram Rozgar Sevaks by the Assistant Commissioner Development (DPC, NREGA) Doda in different blocks have assailed Advertisement Notice No. ACDD/MGNREGA/SS/2011-12/8370-84 dated 28.11.2011 and Notification No. ACDD/NREGA/2009/2011-12/14-30 dated 02.04.2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner Development, Doda in his capacity as Chairman District Selection Committee under NREGA for engagement of Gram Rozgar Sevaks. 3. The main ground taken in the writ petitions is that selection process initiated by respondent No. 4 should be restricted only to those, who have been engaged as Supporting Staff, Gram Rozgar Sevaks and it is only after exhausting them, remaining vacancies should be filled up by resorting to fresh process of selection. The petitioners claimed that they were engaged from time to time as Supporting Staff, Gram Rozgar Sevaks in different Panchayat Halquas of different blocks of Doda district. At the time of their engagement, they were given to understand that with the passage of time they would be regularized against the posts of Gram Rozgar Sevaks under MGNREGA scheme. They further claimed to have served to the satisfaction of respondents 1 to 4 since the date of their engagement, as such, there was no justification with respondent No. 4 to go for fresh selection for engagement of Gram Rozgar Sevaks. 4. The petitioners during the course of arguments also pointed out that selection criteria was formulated by respondent No. 4 vide Notification dated 02.04.2012 (Annexure-D) which had not been notified at the time of issuance of Advertisement Notice. It is further contended that 5 marks earmarked for experience have also not been allotted to the petitioners. It is, thus, contended by the petitioners that this amounts to change of rules of the game during the process of selection midway, which is not permissible in law. 5. State has filed its objections in which it has taken a stand that engagement of petitioners was only temporary that too without following due process of selection. The orders of their engagement were only temporary and on need basis and were issued by the Block Development Officers either on their own or on the references made by MLAs and Ministers. State has filed its objections in which it has taken a stand that engagement of petitioners was only temporary that too without following due process of selection. The orders of their engagement were only temporary and on need basis and were issued by the Block Development Officers either on their own or on the references made by MLAs and Ministers. They were, thus, required to be replaced by the candidates, who are regularly selected and engaged after following guidelines under MGNREGA. It is also contended by the official respondents that engagement of Gram Rozgar Sevaks as per MGNREGA guidelines and Government instructions issued vide No. 15-RD-NREGA of 2010 dated 24.12.2010, is to be made only after due selection is made by the Committee headed by the Assistant Commissioner Development who is ex-officio Chairman of the Selection Committee. It is further contended that as per the aforesaid guidelines, Block Development Officers are not competent to engage Gram Rozgar Sevak. Respondents in their reply have categorically stated that process to make regular selection was set in motion in terms of impugned Advertisement Notice and petitioners also submitted their applications and participated in the selection process. It is only when they were not shortlisted for interview, they thought of challenging selection process initiated vide Advertisement Notice impugned in this writ petition. It is also claimed by the respondents that selection process had since been completed and the petitioners because of their merit had not made it to the select list. It is, thus, contended by the respondents that since the engagement of the petitioners was temporary and without following any due process of law, as such, was to subsist, till regular process of selection was completed and duly' selected candidates were engaged. It is also contended that petitioners are less in merit even after giving due weight age to them for the experience gained against the working in Department. It is also contended that 5 marks earmarked for experience have also been allotted to the petitioners as per criteria notified in this regard. On the basis of reply filed by the official respondents, it is prayed that writ petition which is misconceived and devoid of any merit should be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. On the basis of reply filed by the official respondents, it is prayed that writ petition which is misconceived and devoid of any merit should be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The petitioners have primarily challenged the impugned Advertisement Notice on the ground that they have been serving with respondents-Department for the last couple of years and as such, have acquired right of regularization. They further claim that by accepting their engagement, they had legitimate expectation that with the passage of time their services would be regularized in due course of time. The petitioners, therefore, contended that the Government by this-conduct is estopped from filling up the posts held by the petitioners by resorting to fresh process of selection by issuance of public Advertisement Notice inviting applications from all the eligible candidates. The petitioners also claim that in case process of selection is to be conducted for filling up the posts held by the petitioners then it should be restricted only to the petitioners, and candidates who are not already in the engagement of the respondents should not be considered. 8. When confronted with the facts that petitioners too had participated in the process of selection, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, impugned selection cannot sustain for the reasons that respondents have changed the rules of game for making selection, 'mid-way', which is not permissible in law as this position was settled by various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have contended that initial engagement of the petitioners was temporary and without following any process of selection as envisages under MGNREGA guidelines and circulars issued by the Government from time to time. It was also contended on behalf of respondents that engagement of the petitioners was back-door appointment by an authority not competent to engage Gram Rozgar Sevaks and other subordinate staff under MGNREGA scheme. Their engagement was, thus, on need basis and mainly on the references made by the MLAs and Ministers that too by the Block Development Officers who are not competent authority under MGNREGA scheme and circulars issued by the Government to make such engagements. 10. Their engagement was, thus, on need basis and mainly on the references made by the MLAs and Ministers that too by the Block Development Officers who are not competent authority under MGNREGA scheme and circulars issued by the Government to make such engagements. 10. So far as contention with regard to change of selection criteria during the course of selection is concerned, the same is met by the respondents by contending that at the time of issuance of Advertisement Notice, it was only provided that candidates in the ratio of 1:5 would be shortlisted for viva voce and the selection criteria was, however, not prescribed. It was only after the candidates were shortlisted in the ratio of 1:5, only selection criteria came to be prescribed for the first time and therefore, cannot be allowed to change the selection criteria midway of selection process as contended by the petitioners. Otherwise also, petitioners were well aware of the selection criteria formulated by the respondents and to be adopted during selection process, yet participated in the selection process without any objection and took chance. They, therefore, are estopped from challenging the selection process only after they realized that in view of their merit they have not made it to the select list. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records produced by the official respondents. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged temporarily and perhaps on need basis that too without following due process of selection. Respondents were, thus, right in law to advertise the posts by giving wide publicity so that all the eligible persons get an opportunity to participate in the selection process. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any preferential rights to be engaged as Gram Rozgar Sevaks that too in relaxation to the regular process of selection. The engagement under MGNREGA scheme in the nature of public employment, may be temporary and same cannot be given arbitrarily and without adopting due process of selection. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any preferential rights to be engaged as Gram Rozgar Sevaks that too in relaxation to the regular process of selection. The engagement under MGNREGA scheme in the nature of public employment, may be temporary and same cannot be given arbitrarily and without adopting due process of selection. Moreso, when MGNREGA guidelines and circulars issued by the Government prescribed detailed procedure for making such engagements and issuance of Advertisement Notice for making regular selection, therefore, cannot be faulted with rather it was only reasonable way of providing employment to the eligible unemployed youth by providing them fair opportunity of participating and seeking consideration. Otherwise also, the petitioners who participated in the selection process initiated pursuant to the impugned Advertisement Notice cannot be allowed to turn around and take a new stand and afterthought claim t hat selection process initiated should have been restricted only to the petitioners. If the selection process was to be restricted to the petitioners only, as is contended by the petitioners, then there was no need for issuance of Advertisement Notice and resorting to the selection process, and the petitioners should have been straightway regularized after scrutinizing their eligibility. The contention of the petitioners, therefore, is devoid of any merit and deserves rejection. 13. Other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments that selection is vitiated as respondents have changed the selection criteria mid-way during the course of selection process, is also not tenable in law for the reasons that in the Advertisement Notice, respondent No. 4 had not disclosed any selection criteria to be adopted by them for making selection and had only provided that the candidates would be shortlisted in the ratio of 1:5 on the basis of their academic merit which was done by the respondents accordingly. However, process of selection also include interview', as such, there was nothing wrong for the respondents to prescribe fresh selection criteria, which would take care of academic merit as well as points earmarked for viva-voce. 14. I have also perused the record. However, process of selection also include interview', as such, there was nothing wrong for the respondents to prescribe fresh selection criteria, which would take care of academic merit as well as points earmarked for viva-voce. 14. I have also perused the record. The contention of the petitioners that they have not been given 5 marks earmarked for viva voce is not well founded as the benefit of 5 marks earmarked for experience have been accorded to all those candidates who were possessing requisite experience as certified by the competent authority notwithstanding any discrimination in this regard with any candidate including the petitioners. 15. Viewed thus, I find no force in these petitions. Accordingly, the same are dismissed along with connected MPs. However, for the relief claimed by the petitioners regarding release of their salary, the respondents are directed to release the same under rules for the period the petitioners have actually worked. 16. Registry to return the record produced in these cases by the State to the counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents against proper receipt.