ORDER : By a common order dated 17.05.2016 claim of the writ petitioners has been declined. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioners in these three writ petitions claim that they have worked continuously for about 10 years on daily wages and they were paid their regular salary. They came to this Court by filing separate writ petitions which were disposed of by a common order dated 27.11.2015 [W.P.(S) No. 4019 of 2010 and batch cases]. The writ petitions were disposed of, without adjudicating merits of the rival claim, by a direction to the respondent-authority to consider the claim of the petitioners in terms of Regularisation Rules, 2015 which have been notified vide Notification dated 13.02.2015. The operative portion of the said order reads as under : “14. Learned counsel for the respondents with usual fairness have no serious objection, if direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in all the aforesaid with petitions vide Notification No. 1348 dated 13.02.2015 published by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand. 15. In view of the submissions made by the respective parties and without delving into the merit of the matter, all the writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the Notification No. 1348 dated 13.02.2015 published by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand for regularization of their services taking into account the uninterrupted services rendered by them within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.” 4. For the sake of convenience, few facts in W.P.(S) No. 4625 of 2016 are noticed. The petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 belongs to OBC category and the petitioner no. 5 belongs to SC category. They all had worked for more than eleven years by 2005. The petitioner no. 1, however, has endeavoured to plead that he has been working till recently. The documents which are the certificates issued by some officers, however, do not disclose that he has been working continuously till recently. One of the certificates produced by him (at page 41) would disclose that he has been engaged on daily wages from time to time. Claim of the petitioners has been declined on the ground that they were not engaged against sanctioned vacant posts. One of the certificates produced by him (at page 41) would disclose that he has been engaged on daily wages from time to time. Claim of the petitioners has been declined on the ground that they were not engaged against sanctioned vacant posts. The petitioners have not pleaded that at that time there were sanctioned vacant posts. Besides the above, the petitioners who did not work on daily wages continuously after 2005 cannot claim regularization in terms of Notification dated 13.02.2015. It needs to be noticed that in the light of order dated 27.11.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4019 of 2010 and batch cases, claim of the petitioners could have been considered strictly in terms of the stipulations under the Regularisation Rules, 2015. 5. Finding no merit in the writ petitions, these are dismissed.