JUDGMENT : This is a writ petition. 2. Petitioners, Saleem Ali, Rajesh Singh and Devinder Singh, among others, were engaged by the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education, herein respondents 1 to 4 ( for short to be referred to as the respondent-Board) on consolidated monthly wages of Rs.1800/ for an initial period of 60 days vide Order No. 484-B of 2004 dated 23.06.2004. This engagement was made pursuant to their selection by the Interview Committee and approval by the Chairman of the Board. Their engagement was extended from time to time. The engagement order dated 23.06.2004, however, came to be challenged before this Court in SWP No. 1208/2004 on the ground that candidates from District, Rajouri and District, Doda were not given due representation. A learned Single Bench of this Court disposed of that writ petition vide judgment dated 23.12.2004 directing the respondent-Board “to disengage any person engaged against the quota meant for these districts and consider the petitioners and other eligible persons who have applied for these two districts pursuant to the notice for engagement in accordance with rules.” Further it was directed that disengagement order be issued forthwith and consideration to the eligible candidates shall be accorded within a period of one month and also that in the event Board is of the opinion that fresh applications are required to be invited, it has liberty to do so. 3. Pursuant to the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench in SWP No. 1208/2004 (supra), the respondent-Board instead of disengaging only those persons who had been engaged against the quota meant for District, Doda and District, Rajouri, issued order No. 96-B of 2005 dated 20.01.2005 whereby all the twelve candidates engaged by virtue of order dated 23.06.2004 including the petitioners were disengaged. Ten out of these twelve persons, including herein petitioners, challenged the disengagement order in SWP No. 262/2005. That writ petition coming up before a learned Single Bench of this court on 10.03.2006, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents made a statement that the respondent-Board was willing to accord consideration to the petitioners as and when any fresh engagement is to be made in future by the Board in various districts for the purpose for which they were earlier engaged. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in that case accepted the offer made by the counsel for respondents and the learned Single Bench disposed of the writ petition with consensus of the counsel on both the sides with following directions: “(i) As and when any engagement for the menial or similar job on consolidated basis is required to be made by the Bard, the petitioners shall be accorded consideration on priority basis. (ii) The vacancies in various Districts be filled up from the concerned Districts subject to such policy being formulated by the competent Authority. (iii) In future, if any, disengagement is to be made principle of “first come, last go” and last come first go” shall be adhered to.” 4. Pursuant to and in compliance with the directions issued by the learned Single Bench on 10.03.2006, respondent-Board by its order No. 301-B of 2007 dated 09.05.2007 accorded sanction to the engagement of all the petitioners of SWP No. 262 (supra) including herein petitioners as consolidated workers on monthly wages basis for initial period of 60 days which, however, was extended from time to time. It is admitted that petitioners are still working in the respondent-Board. 5. The respondent-Board issued Employment Notice No. F(Adm-B)CU/12 dated 12.06.2012 whereby 23 vacancies (tentative) of orderlies have been notified for selection and appointment. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking primarily writ of certiorari quashing the said employment notice. In addition, petitioners seek quashing of the various orders whereby the private respondents have been engaged/regularized from time to time against various posts and writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Board to regularize the services of the petitioners. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 7. The core contention of the petitioners is that their initial engagement on consolidated basis vide order No.484-B of 2004 dated 23.06.2004 was made on merit basis on the recommendation of the Interview Committee and with the approval of the Competent Authority. The respondent-Board acted illegally in terminating the engagement of all of them in compliance with the judgment of this court in SWP No. 1208/2004 as the said judgment required termination of only those candidates who had been engaged against the quota meant for the candidates of District, Rajouri and District, Doda. The respondent-Board acted illegally in terminating the engagement of all of them in compliance with the judgment of this court in SWP No. 1208/2004 as the said judgment required termination of only those candidates who had been engaged against the quota meant for the candidates of District, Rajouri and District, Doda. Further it is alleged by the petitioners that respondents 8 & 11 have been regularized vide the regularization order dated 20.07.2012 (supra), who, however, are illiterate and do not possess the minimum qualification for appointment as Class IV. By the same order, respondents 5, 6, 7 & 10 have been regularized even though they were engaged later than the initial engagement of the petitioners. BY the same order, respondent No. 9, who though initially engaged on consolidated basis vide an order dated 04.12.2003 and was disengaged on 29.06.2005 and engaged again on 02.07.2005 has also been regularized. 8. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued vehemently that petitioners, having been initially engaged in a regular process, had a preferential right of regularization but the respondent-Board after their illegal disengagement, engaged a number of persons on consolidated/ad hoc basis up to the time of re-engagement of the petitioners vide order dated 09.05.2007 and later on regularized most of them along with regularization of the persons engaged prior to the petitioners. Learned counsel argued that the respondent-Board does not have its Recruitment/Employment Rules and the employees at lower level are generally engaged on consolidated basis and regularized from time to time. The benefit of regularization has been illegally denied to the petitioners though number of persons similarly situated with them and even the persons not possessing the requisite qualification, like respondents 5 & 6, have been engaged and regularized. 9. The stand of the respondent-Board is that the engagement of the petitioners vide order dated 09.05.2007 does not confer any right or privilege on them for permanent absorption in the Board. The engagement on consolidated basis is made purely on need and exigency basis and the Board can exercise its discretion in making appointment on need and exigency basis. In regard to the regularization order dated 20.07.2012, the reply of the respondents is that by virtue of this order only the consolidated employees who had completed seven years were regularized but the petitioners did not fall in that category as they had not completed seven years. In regard to the regularization order dated 20.07.2012, the reply of the respondents is that by virtue of this order only the consolidated employees who had completed seven years were regularized but the petitioners did not fall in that category as they had not completed seven years. The stand of the respondent-Board also is that relief sought by the petitioners for permanent absorption as consolidated workers at par with those who came to be engaged in past cannot be granted because if a wrong has been committed, petitioners cannot claim parity with the same. The factual position in regard to the private respondents, however, is not disputed or explained. The practice of rampant consolidated engagements and their regularization in the course of time is not denied. 10. Ms. Aruna Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board, argued that petitioners cannot claim parity with the persons who had completed seven years as consolidated payee and were regularized vide order dated 20.07.2012. Ms. Thakur, however, was fair enough to state that the respondent-Board does not have its own rules or regulations governing recruitment and appointment of its employees and as a general practice corresponding rules applicable in the State Government service are applied. 11. Petitioners’ contention that their initial engagement vide order dated 23.03.2004 was made after their selection in a selection process conducted by the Interview Committee is supported by the engagement order itself and is not denied. For the purpose of this writ petition, I cannot but hold that the disengagement of the petitioners vide order dated 20.01.2005, which was passed in compliance with the judgment dated 23.12.2004 passed by the learned Single Bench of this court in SWP No. 1208/2004, was unjustified for the reason that the said judgment unequivocally required disengagement of only those persons who had been engaged against the quota of the candidates from District, Rajouri and District, Doda, whereas it is not stated that petitioners too had been engaged against that quota. It is admitted case of the respondents that vide the impugned regularization order dated 20.07.2012 all those consolidated payee employees were regularized who had completed seven years and at the same time, it is not denied that four of them, herein respondents 5,6, 7 & 10, were engaged after the initial engagement of the petitioners. It is admitted case of the respondents that vide the impugned regularization order dated 20.07.2012 all those consolidated payee employees were regularized who had completed seven years and at the same time, it is not denied that four of them, herein respondents 5,6, 7 & 10, were engaged after the initial engagement of the petitioners. It is also not denied that respondents 8 & 11, regularized vide Order dated 20.07.2012, did not possess the minimum required qualification for class IV. 12. It, thus, clearly emerges that, but for their unjustified disengagement vide order dated 20.01.2005, the petitioners as from the date of their initial engagement would have completed more than eight years as at the time of the regularization order dated 20.07.2012 and would have been regularized at that time. In view of this peculiar aspect, the respondents should have taken sympathetic view towards the petitioners and accorded consideration either to relaxation in completion of seven years' period by them or at the least should have assured them regularization after they complete seven years as consolidated payee. contention that the petitioners cannot claim parity with a wrong action holds no water as it is not the case of the respondent-Board that the impugned regularization order dated 20.07.2012 was a wrong administrative action on its part. 13. In any case the petitioners have since completed more than nine years after their subsequent engagement vide order dated 09.05.2007. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice and equity favours their claim for regularization, more so in backdrop of their initial engagement in a selection process and unjustified termination at the earlier stage. I, thus, find strong merit in the claim of the petitioners insofar as it relates to their regularization. 14. The relief sought by the petitioners to the extent of quashing the regularization of the private respondents, however, cannot be granted and is not required to be considered on merits for the reason that they have been engaged by the Board authorities and are working with them for the last more than ten years. In taking such a view, I am supported by the by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Narinder Singh’s case (supra). 15. In Narinder Singh’s case, the learned Division Bench has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and ors. In taking such a view, I am supported by the by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Narinder Singh’s case (supra). 15. In Narinder Singh’s case, the learned Division Bench has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and ors. v. K.P. Tiwari, 2002 AIR SCW 2684 in which their Lordships have held in paragraphs 4 & 5: “4. It is unnecessary in this case to examine either questions of law or fact arising in the matter. Suffice to say that the respondent has been engaged now and has been in service for more than five years. We do not think, it would be appropriate to disturb that state of affairs by making any other order resulting in uprooting the respondent from his livelihood. 5. In that view of the matter, we decline to interfere with the order made by the High Court. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.” 16. The learned Division Bench has also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in D.M. Prem Kumari v. the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division and ors. (2009) 2 Supreme 271 , where their Lordships in para 11 have observed: “11. Having given our anxious consideration to the case pleaded by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view, that it would not be desirable to decide this case on merits. If we have to do it, we might have to tell the appellant that she might have to go out of the employment. This, in our opinion, would cause great hardship and injustice to the appellant.” 17. For all that said and discussed above, this writ petition is partially allowed and by issue of a writ of mandamus respondents are directed to regularize the petitioners as Class IV against the available vacancies with notional effect from the date the regularization had become due, subject, however, to their fulfillment of other eligibility criteria. It shall be open for the respondent-Board to fill up the remaining vacancies in the regular process. The interim direction issued by this court on 30.08.2012 stands vacated accordingly. 18. Disposed of.