JUDGMENT : Janak Raj Kotwal, J. 1. These four writ petitions arise from selection/appointment of drivers pursuant to advertisement Notice No. 01-DULBJ of 2012, dated 22.05.2012 issued by the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as respondent No. 2) whereby applications were invited and selection process was commenced inter alia for one hundred vacancies of drivers in the Directorate of Urban Local Bodies, Jammu. Petitioners in all the petitions primarily seek issue of writ of certiorari quashing the select list issued vide Notification No. DULBJ/2014/9023-24, dated 16.10.2014. In SWP No. 3030/2014 and SWP No. 3167/2014 petitioners seek also writ of certiorari quashing order No. DULBJ/2014/9316-9439, dated 24.10.2014 whereby the private respondents pursuant to their selection have been appointed as drivers in Municipal Councils/Committees of Jammu Division and Urban Local Bodies, Division-I and II. In SWP No. 3141/2014, petitioner seeks also quashing of Notification dated 25.08.2014 and in SWP No. 3057/2014, petitioners seek quashing of Notification dated 30.08.2014, which were issued during the selection process. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. The advertisement Notice dated 22.05.2012 (supra) would indicate that it was issued by respondent No. 2 in his capacity as the Chairman of the Selection Committee constituted vide Govt. Order No. 96-HUD of 2012, dated 03.04.2012. The prescribed qualification for the post of driver had been shown as 'Matric pass with valid Hill Driving/Heavy Vehicle Driving License issued by the competent authority'. The notification provided also that the criteria for selection will be published in due course of time. 4. Common ground of both the sides is that in furtherance of the selection process the driving test of all the eligible candidates was held on 11.06.2012 and a list of the candidates, who qualified the driving test, was notified by the Selection Committee vide Notification No. DULBJ/2014/6463-68, dated 25.08.2014 whereby the candidates were called for viva voce test to be conducted by the Selection Committee with effect from 01.09.2014. The dates of viva voce test were, however, postponed, which shall be noticed hereafter. By the same Notification dated 25.08.2014 read with corrigendum issued vide No. DULBJ/2014/6759-64, dated 29.08.2014 the Selection Committee also published the criteria for selection. The petitioners in SWP Nos. 3030/2014, 3057/2014 and 3167/2014 claim that they were figuring in this list and appeared in the viva voce test. By the same Notification dated 25.08.2014 read with corrigendum issued vide No. DULBJ/2014/6759-64, dated 29.08.2014 the Selection Committee also published the criteria for selection. The petitioners in SWP Nos. 3030/2014, 3057/2014 and 3167/2014 claim that they were figuring in this list and appeared in the viva voce test. The petitioners in SWP No. 3141/2014 did not qualify the driving test. 5. After holding the viva voce test, respondent No. 2 issued the impugned selection list vide Notification No. DULBJ/2014-9023-24, dated 16.10.2014, which was followed by the impugned appointment Order No. DULBJ/2014/9316-9439, dated 24.10.2014. Hence these writ petitions. 6. In all the writ petitions, except SWP No. 3057/2014, petitioners question the very jurisdiction of the Selection Committee headed by respondent No. 2 to commence and conduct the selection process and to issue the select list. It is contended that under the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Local Body Institutions (Management) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008 (for short the Rules of 2008) issued vide SRO 417, dated 18.12.2008, the post of driver is a Class-V non-gazetted post. Selection for all such posts is required to be made by the Service Selection Board (SSB) constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 (for short the Rules of 2010), Rule 5 whereof provides that all appointments to non-gazetted posts/subordinate services shall be made by the SSB constituted under these Rules. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, was that the competent authority should have referred the vacancies to the SSB for making selection of the candidates whereas the selection process conducted by the Selection Committee headed by respondent No. 2 dehors the Rules of 2010 and is liable to be quashed on that score. Mr. Sharma urged that an administrative act performed without jurisdiction is non est and liable to be set aside. 7. Assail to the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee has been countered by the official as well as the private respondents. It is contended that the posts of driver for which the selection has been made are comprised in the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Local Body Institution (Management) Service created under the Rules of 2008 and selection process for all the posts comprised in this Service is governed by the same Rules and is excluded from the purview of the Rules of 2010. It is contended that the Rules of 2010 have no application to the selection in question inasmuch as the posts of driver are not borne on the cadres of subordinate/non-gazetted Service of any Department of the Government as these posts are borne on a service created under the Rules of 2008, which have been framed under the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Act, 2000 (for short the Municipal Act). It was submitted by Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG and by Mr. Rahul Pant, learned counsel for the private respondents, that section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Act, 2010 (for short the Act of 2010), under which the Rules of 2010 have been framed, inter alia excludes the posts for which any special procedure is laid down under any enactment of the State Legislature. 8. The Act of 2010 in terms of its section 3 applies to all gazetted and non-gazetted posts borne on the establishment of any Department or Service of the Government. Under clause (i) of section 3 the posts for which any special procedure is laid down under any enactment of the State legislature', however, are excluded from purview of this Act. Selection in respect of all non-gazetted posts falling within the purview of the Act of 2010 indeed is to be made by the Service Selection Board constituted under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010 framed under the Act of 2010. The contention of the petitioners, therefore, would prevail only if it is found that the posts in question, that is, the posts of driver advertised vide Advertisement Notice dated 22.05.2012 (supra) are not excluded from application of the Act of 2010 in terms of its section 3(i). 9. Sub-section (2) of section 307 of the Municipal Act empowers the Government inter alia to frame rules to prescribe 'the qualification, method of recruitment, salaries, leave, allowances and others condition of service including disciplinary matters' of the officers and servants of the Municipalities (Local Bodies). The Rules of 2008 have been framed by the Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 307 of the Municipal Act. It is the common ground of both the sides that the posts of driver for which the selection has been made are borne on the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Local Body Institution (Management) Service constituted under the Rules of 2008. It is the common ground of both the sides that the posts of driver for which the selection has been made are borne on the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Local Body Institution (Management) Service constituted under the Rules of 2008. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2008 lays down 'Qualification and Method of Recruitment' to any post in any class, category or grade in the Service and provides also that 'all posts to be filled up by promotion/direct recruitment shall be referred to the Department Promotion Committees/Selection Agency as the case may be'. 10. The Rules of 2008 have been framed by the Government in exercise of the power of delegated legislation conferred under the Municipal Act and therefore, have statutory force in regard to laying down the qualification and method of recruitment of officers and officials of the Local Bodies and for providing that promotion and direct recruitments shall be made by the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Selection Agency, as the case may be. The posts borne on the Service of the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Local Body Institutions (Management) Service, including the posts of drivers, are thus excluded from the purview of the Act of 2010 and therefore, were not required to be referred to SSB created under the Rules of 2010 read with Act of 2010. Assail to the impugned selection on the ground of jurisdiction of the Selection Committee, thus, fails. 11. In spite of having considered and decided the plea relating to jurisdiction raised by the petitioners on merits, it, nonetheless, needs to be stated that the petitioners, who took part in the selection process, are estopped from taking such a plea on the principle of acquiescence and waiver. The petitioners, having applied under the advertisement Notice in question and taken part in selection process to the extent it was possible for them, cannot be heard questioning the jurisdiction of the selecting body after their failure in the selection process. The petitioners, having applied under the advertisement Notice in question and taken part in selection process to the extent it was possible for them, cannot be heard questioning the jurisdiction of the selecting body after their failure in the selection process. In Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 , legal position in this regard has been stated by the Supreme Court in paras 9 and 10 of the reporting, which I reproduce: "9........It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair....... 10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful." 12. Common and primary ground of assail to the impugned selection in SWP Nos. 3030/2014, 3167/2014 and 3057/2014 is that the criteria for selection issued vide Notification dated 25.08.2014 was changed during the selection process vide corrigendum dated 29.08.2014. It is urged and emphasized that by virtue of the corrigendum the points allocated for driving test conducted in the year, 2012 were reduced from 60 to 45 during the selection process in the year 2014. In SWP No. 3057/2014 it is in addition contended that the corrigendum was issued a day before the viva-voce which deeply affected the selection process as criteria in regard to the maximum points allotted for the driving test was reduced from 60 to 45. 13. Counsel for petitioners argued vehemently that change in criteria for selection during selection process vitiates the entire selection process and renders it illegal. They argued that rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has commenced. They argued also that by reducing the points allocated for driving test held in the year 2012 two years after that in the year 2014 was aimed at accommodating those blue eyed candidates who did not do well in the driving test, which caused prejudice to the petitioners. Mr. They argued also that by reducing the points allocated for driving test held in the year 2012 two years after that in the year 2014 was aimed at accommodating those blue eyed candidates who did not do well in the driving test, which caused prejudice to the petitioners. Mr. Salathia cited and relied upon Bishnu Biswas & Ors., v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 774 , K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3512, Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 and Yogesh Bamba v. State & Ors., 2010 (1) SLJ 12 : 2009 (3) JKJ 271 [HC] : JKJ Soft JKJ/24501. 14. That the criteria for selection was notified vide Notification dated 25.08.2014 and a corrigendum in this regard was issued on 29.08.2014 is admitted by the respondents. The official respondents, however, have very clearly denied the contention of the petitioners that by issuing corrigendum dated 29.08.2014 a midway change in criteria for selection was made. It is stated in their reply by the official respondents that an inadvertent error had crept in the criteria issued vide Notification dated 25.08.2014 and to rectify the error corrigendum was issued on 29.08.2014. It is further stated, which is supported by the record produced by the learned Sr. AAG, that the corrigendum was issued prior to commencement of the viva voce inasmuch as the date of viva voce was postponed from 01.09.2014 to 06.09.2014. 15. Learned Sr. AAG, Mr. S.S. Nanda, submitted that a wrong impression is being created by the petitioners that there had been any midway change in the criteria for selection. Pointing out from the record of selection produced by him Mr. Nanda explained that the corrigendum dated 29.08.2014 was published in the Newspaper, namely, Daily Excelsior in its issue dated 02.09.2014 and by another corrigendum dated 30.08.2014 the dates for conducting viva voce, earlier notified as 01.09.2014 to 05.09.2014, were postponed to 06.09.2014 to 10.09.2014 and this corrigendum was published in the aforementioned Newspaper in its issue dated 03.09.2014. The viva voce commenced on 06.09.2014. Mr. Nanda argued that the change in criteria, whatsoever, caused by the corrigendum was of the nature, which would have equally applied to all the candidates having come through the driving test. Mr. The viva voce commenced on 06.09.2014. Mr. Nanda argued that the change in criteria, whatsoever, caused by the corrigendum was of the nature, which would have equally applied to all the candidates having come through the driving test. Mr. Rahul Pant, learned counsel for the private respondents, in addition argued that the petitioners are estopped from raising any plea in regard to alleged change in criteria as they participated in the selection process after issue of the corrigendum without raising any objection in this regard and having failed in the result they cannot turn round and question the procedure adopted by the selecting body. Mr. Pant cited and relied upon Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam & Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 515 . 16. The effect of the corrigendum dated 29.08.2014 (supra), which according to the petitioners was a change in the criteria for selection, has been noticed. The criteria for selection notified by the Selection Committee vide Notification dated 25.08.2014 was as under: “Criteria for selection I Driving test = Grade basis, i.e. 60 points A grade= 60 points B grade= 55 points C grade= 50 points D grade= 45 points II Experience = 10 points (one point for each year maximum 10 years) iii Matric 10 points (pro-rata basis) iv Viva-voce= 20 points Total 100 points 17. As per the corrigendum dated 29.08.2014 the criteria issued vide Notification dated 25.08.2014 was to be read as under: “Criteria for selection I Driving test = Grade basis, i.e. 45 points A grade= 45 points B grade= 40 points C grade= 35 points D grade= 30 points II Experience = 10 points (one point for each year maximum 10 years) iii Matric 25 points (pro-rata basis) iv Viva-voce= 20 points Total 100 points 18. The primary question, thus, raised is, whether there had been mid-selection change in the rules of the game, that is, the criteria for selection and the ancillary question would be whether the said change, if any, tilted the scale towards the selected candidates and adversely affected the petitioners. 19. As said above, the selection in question is governed by the Rules of 2008 framed by the Government in exercise of powers conferred under section 307 of the Municipal Act. 19. As said above, the selection in question is governed by the Rules of 2008 framed by the Government in exercise of powers conferred under section 307 of the Municipal Act. These Rules provide for the selection to be made by Selection Agency (named as Selection Committee in this case). The Rules, however, do not prescribe any procedure or norms to be followed by the Selection Committee. It was, thus, open for the Selection Committee to adopt such a procedure for selection and fix such norms as were reasonable and apt having regard to the posts for which the selection was to be made and to allocate points for driving test and the viva voce. It is worthwhile to quote the principle of law summarized by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 3 SCC 104 : "15. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that in case the statutory rules prescribe a particular mode of selection, it has to be given strict adherence accordingly. In case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules and there is no other impediment in law, the competent authority while laying down the norms for selection may prescribe for the tests and further specify the minimum bench marks for written test as well as for viva voce" 20. Given that the posts to be filled up were those of the driver, the Selection Committee can be said to have aptly started with holding of the driving test of all the eligible candidates, that is, the candidates possessing the requisite academic and technical qualification prescribed under the Rules of 2008. After shortlisting the candidates on the basis of the result of the driving test by excluding the candidates who failed, the Selection Committee disclosed the criteria for selection, called the shortlisted candidates for viva voce, conducted the viva voce and prepared the selection list. No objection to the procedure and the norms adopted by the Selection Committee to that effect has been raised by the petitioners nor could any such objection have been raised as all the petitioners took part in the selection process adopted by the Selection Committee. No objection to the procedure and the norms adopted by the Selection Committee to that effect has been raised by the petitioners nor could any such objection have been raised as all the petitioners took part in the selection process adopted by the Selection Committee. The grievance of the petitioners in majority of the petitions, raised after completion of the selection process, however, is that there had been midway change in the rules of the game, that is, the criteria for selection. 21. Legal position in regard to any change in criteria for selection has been noticed. In K. Manjusree's case (supra) the requirement of minimum points for interview in the selection for District and Sessions Judges in Andhra Pradesh Higher Judicial Service was introduced after entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed. Supreme Court held in this case that introduction of such a condition after completion of the selection process would amount to change in the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible (para 27 of the reporting). 22. Likewise in Himani Malhotra's case (supra) at the beginning of the selection process, no minimum cut-off point for viva voce was prescribed for Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2006. The criteria of cut-off points for viva voce was, however, introduced by the respondents therein after the result in written test and postponement of viva voce for six times. Learned three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while referring with approval to K. Manjusree's case held that 'prescribing minimum points for viva voce was not permissible at all after written test was conducted' (para 14 of the reporting). Supreme Court observed in para 15 of the reporting: "There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and viva-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at viva-voce test was illegal." 23. In Bishnu Biswas' case (supra) Supreme Court has referred with approval to K. Manjusree and other authorities on the point. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at viva-voce test was illegal." 23. In Bishnu Biswas' case (supra) Supreme Court has referred with approval to K. Manjusree and other authorities on the point. The Hon'ble Court, however, has also pointed out that the issue of the change of the rule of the game has been referred to the larger Bench in Tej Parkash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2013) 4 SCC 540 . 24. In Tej Parkash Pathak's case the proposition that to change the rules of the game, that is, criteria for selection, in the middle or after process of selection has commenced is impermissible has been considered. The matter related to recruitment process for filing up the posts of translator in the High Court of Rajasthan. The recruitment rules provided for holding written examination of two papers carrying 100 points and interview for 50 points. The rules did not provide for securing any minimum points in the written examination. Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court, however, after the examination was conducted, ordered that only those candidates who secured a minimum of 75 points be selected to fill up the posts in question. Learned three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was of the opinion that 'application of principle as laid down in Manjusree's case (supra) without any further scrutiny would not be in the larger public interest or the goal of establishing an efficient administrative machinery.' Learned Bench, therefore, felt the necessity of referring the matter to a larger Bench with following observation: "19. No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the 'rules of the game' insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in the case of C. Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore AIR 1965 SC 1293 ] etc. in order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment process and its results. Whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the 'rules of the game' stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court. We, therefore, order that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard." 25. We, therefore, order that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard." 25. As stated hereinabove, there is no objection nor there could have been any to the procedure and the norms of selection adopted by the Selection Committee, that is, holding of the driving test of all the eligible candidates and issuing the criteria for selection at the time of notifying the candidates shortlisted for viva voce vide notification dated 25.08.2014. Record produced on behalf of the respondents would show that in the driving test the successful candidates were graded as 'A,' 'B', 'C and 'D'. As per the notification dated 25.08.2014, 60 points were allocated for grade A and 55, 50 and 45 points respectively for grade B to D. Further allocation was 10 points for experience up to ten years (one point for each year), 10 points for academic qualification, that is, Matric on pro rata basis and 20 points for viva voce. By way of the corrigendum dated 29.08.2014 the maximum points allocated for the driving test were reduced from 60 to 45 and the 15 points so available were correspondingly allocated for academic qualification raising them from 10 to 25 on pro rata basis. 26. It is important to note that the aforementioned change in allocation of points for driving test and academic qualification caused by the corrigendum dated 29.08.2014 was published prior to the commencement of viva voce test. It is noticed in this behalf that after issue of the corrigendum dated 29.08.2014 the date of commencement of viva voce test was postponed from 01.09.2014 to 06.09.2014. The original allocation of points vide notification dated 25.08.2014 and the change vide corrigendum dated 29.08.2014, therefore, were in effect made at the same stage of the selection process. A change in allocation of points effected at the same stage when the points were originally allocated does not amount to any mid-selection change in criteria for selection and would rather amount only to reallocation of points. A question might have arisen had this reallocation been made after holding the viva voce test. 27. A change in allocation of points effected at the same stage when the points were originally allocated does not amount to any mid-selection change in criteria for selection and would rather amount only to reallocation of points. A question might have arisen had this reallocation been made after holding the viva voce test. 27. On thorough consideration of the matter in light of the record of selection produced before this Court it could not be imagined, much less found, that the change in allocation of points for driving test and academic qualification was aimed at tilting the scale in favour of any candidate or a section of candidates to the disadvantage of another candidate or a section of candidates. It is important to point out in this regard and underline that result of the candidates, who qualified the driving test, was grade based, that is, the successful candidates were graded as A, B, C or D. Likewise, allocation for academic qualification was on pro rata basis. The change in allocation of points for these two categories could not have unduly tilted the scale in any manner because there was proportionate reduction in the points to be secured as per the grade obtained in the driving test and proportionate increase as per percentage of marks obtained in academic examination. The plea of the petitioners that there had been any midway/mid-selection change in criteria for selection, therefore, has no substance and in no case the change in allocation of points for driving test and academic qualification can be said to have resulted in any preconceived change in the result of selection nor can be said to have been made to distort the selection. It is noticed and is important to point out that a vast majority of the selected candidates are those who obtained grade 'A', equivalent to 45 points, in the driving test and only few of them have obtained 'C or 'D' grade. It can, therefore, be said that the reduction in the points allocated for driving test was to the disadvantage of the vast majority of the selected candidates as they would have obtained 60 points under the criteria earlier issued as compared to 45 points secured by them due the corrigendum dated 29.08.2014. 28. It can, therefore, be said that the reduction in the points allocated for driving test was to the disadvantage of the vast majority of the selected candidates as they would have obtained 60 points under the criteria earlier issued as compared to 45 points secured by them due the corrigendum dated 29.08.2014. 28. Having rejected the plea of the change in rules of the game on merits, I, nonetheless, cannot but hold that such a plea is not available to those petitioners, who presented themselves for interview without raising any objection against, what they called, change in criteria for selection. 29. Objection has also been raised against some specific aspects of the procedure and manner of selection adopted by the Selection Committee. It is pointed out that points for experience have been awarded in fraction. It is contended that the criteria for selection contemplates one point for one year whereas points to some of the successful candidates have been awarded in fraction for an incomplete year as well. 30. It has been noticed from the record that the Selection Committee has counted the experience in terms of months and not in terms of completed years only and points have been allocated for months of experience beyond a completed year or years. To explain, for example, a candidate having experience of six years and six months has been awarded 6.5 points. No illegality can be said to have been committed in doing so. If one point is awardable for one year's experience, there is no illegality in awarding half a point for half year's experience and so on. 31. Somewhere objection is raised that some of the selected candidates have secured zero points in experience indicating that they had no experience as against years of experience of the petitioners. Objection on this score is totally without any merit. It needs to be pointed out that driving experience is not comprised in the requisite qualification prescribed under the Rules of 2008. A candidate having no driving experience could have applied for recruitment in case he fulfilled the basic requirement of being a Matric pass and possessing the requisite driving license. The Rules of 2008 or the advertisement Notice did not even provide for any preference to be given to a candidate having experience of driving. A candidate having no driving experience could have applied for recruitment in case he fulfilled the basic requirement of being a Matric pass and possessing the requisite driving license. The Rules of 2008 or the advertisement Notice did not even provide for any preference to be given to a candidate having experience of driving. The driving experience of course was allocated 10 points to the benefit of a candidate possessing such experience and to avail this experience the advertisement Notification required a certificate to be produced in this regard. However, it was neither impermissible nor impossible for a candidate to steal march over a candidate possessing certified driving experience. 32. The petitioners in SWP No. 3141/2014, who could not qualify the driving test, have questioned the genuineness of the test contending that they had faired better than the candidates who were declared as having qualified the test. The plea in this regard is unsustainable because this Court cannot hold that driving of these petitioners was better than some or many other candidates. This Court cannot substitute its opinion for the view taken by the officers/officials who conducted the driving test, who are supposed to be experts in the field. 33. For all that said and discussed above, these four writ petitions have no merit and are therefore, dismissed along with all connected MPs. SWP No. 1455/2012, MP Nos. 4647/2014, 2217/2012 Petitioners in this writ petition seem not to have applied pursuant to the advertisement Notification dated 22.05.2012. They, however, stake their claim to regularization against the posts being held by them on casual basis and in that context they have also questioned the entire selection process pursuant to Notification dated 22.05.2012. Stand of the respondents is that petitioners had been engaged as need base labourers and no right of regularization has accrued to them. Primary question involved in this writ petition relates to entitlement of petitioners to regularization. This question, however, was not addressed by the parties while hearing arguments in the batch of the petitions. This petition is, therefore, delinked from others and be listed in due course.