THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P. No.28432 of 2010 ORDER: The 4th respondent is said to be a voluntary organization undertaking health services and recognized by the Municipal Corporation, Anantapur. Petitioners contend that they were engaged as Health Assistants in the 4th respondent, and that in turn was approved by the 3rd respondent, under an agreement dated 28-08- 2010. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 30-08-2010, placing them on outsourcing basis with the Municipal Health Officer, the 5th respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 3rd respondent issued another letter, dated 15- 09-2010, withdrawing the petitioners from the services of the 5th respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation. Basically, the association of the petitioners was with the 4th respondent. The letter dated 30-08-2010 addressed by the 3rd respondent reveals that he asked the 5th respondent to appoint the petitioners as Health Assistants. The method or pattern of appointment is not at all indicated. The petitioners too have not filed any order of their appointment. In his letter, dated 15-09-2010, the 3rd respondent has mentioned the alleged acts of misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners, and accordingly, directed the 5th respondent to go away with the services of the petitioners. When the very appointment of the petitioners is shrouded in uncertainty, the petitioners cannot claim that they are regular employees of any wing of the Corporation. It is not even mentioned that their relationship with 4th respondent ceased to exist. Further, when the so-called appointments are at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the petitioners cannot assail the decision of that very authority, as to their continuance. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of, upholding the order impugned in the writ petition. It is, however, directed that, in case the respondents take steps to appoint Health Assistants, the cases of the petitioners shall also be considered. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14-12-2010. KO