JUDGMENT : By a common order dated 17.05.2016 claim of the writ petitioners has been declined. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioners claim that they have worked continuously for about 20 years on daily-wages. 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 of the case are noticed. The petitioner nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 belong to OBC category, the petitioner no. 1 belongs to SC category and petitioner nos. 2, 4 and 6 belong to General category. They claim that they all had worked for more than ten years by 2006, and they have endeavoured to plead that they have been working till recently. The documents which are the certificates issued by some officers, however, do not disclose that they have been working continuously till recently. 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 the time when they were engaged there were sanctioned vacant posts. The documents which are the certificates issued by some officers, however, do not disclose that they have been working continuously till recently. 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 the time when they were engaged 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 petition, it is dismissed.