THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24350 & 31665 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners state that they were engaged as Messengers/Sweepers in various Branches of the Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank, the 1st respondent herein. According to them, as many as 200 persons were working as Messengers/Sweepers for the last several years with artificial breaks. It is alleged that in the year 2006, a notification was issued to appoint candidates on regular basis, without considering their cases for regularization, but the said effort did not fructify. The petitioners further state that in spite of repeated representations from them, and their association, the respondents did not regularize their services, nor the minimum wages meant for the posts were paid, in spite of the fact that they hold the qualifications for the posts, and have put in substantial length of service. The petitioners contend that in the recent past, the respondents have initiated steps to appoint Ex-servicemen against Group ‘B’ posts, and a letter was addressed on 01-06-2010 to the District Sainik Welfare Officer. They feel aggrieved by the step initiated by the respondents to fill the posts through Ex-servicemen. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. The allegation of the petitioners that they have been engaged as Messengers/Sweepers is denied. It is also stated that on the advice given by the sponsoring Bank, i.e. NABARD, steps were taken to fill the posts as per the guidelines, and through the medium of a Recruitment Board. The contention, that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized, or that the respondents are under obligation to pay the minimum wages, is denied. Heard Sri Penjuri Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the action of the respondents in addressing letter dated 01-06-2010 to the District Sainik Welfare Officer. Their contention is that even though they are in service for the past several years, the respondents are taking steps to fill the posts through Ex-servicemen, without regularizing their services. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v. DAYANAND AND OTHERS[1]. The law relating to the rights of persons engaged on temporary or part-time basis by various organizations has undergone phenomenal change in the recent past. At one point of time, it was held that the employer is under obligation to regularize the services of the employees, who are engaged on temporary or ad hoc basis for substantial length of time. However, in STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI[2], the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that, unless the appointments are made through the prescribed procedure and in a substantive manner, persons, who are engaged on temporary or ad hoc basic, cannot insist on regularization of their services, irrespective of such service. Slightly different note was sounded in OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v. DAYANAND AND OTHERS (1 Supra). The occasion for this Court to examine the feasibility of directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners or to interfere with the proposed recruitment process, would have arisen, if only it is established that the petitioners were, in fact, employed, and are continued for quite a good length of time, may be, on ad hoc, or part time basis. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the petitioners were engaged. The various statements filed, pertaining to the individual candidates, showing that they have been paid any emoluments or bonus; are not signed by any official. Self-serving statements of that nature cannot be taken into account, particularly when the respondents have flatly denied the engagement of the petitioners, in any capacity. Further, the letter impugned in this writ petition is in relation to appointments of Messengers/Sweepers from the category of Ex-servicemen. A separate quota is earmarked for that category. The petitioners do not belong to the said category. Viewed from any angle, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.05-09-2011. KO [1] (2008) 10 SCC 1 [2] (2006) 4 SCC 1