JUDGMENT : S.B. Sinha, J. The writ petition is directed against an order dated 29-1-1994 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 5681 of 1996 whereby and where under the application of the petitioners for regularization of their services in the State as Rural Medical Practitioners purported to be in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212, Finance & Planning, dated 22-4-1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "the G.O." for the sake of brevity) was dismissed. 2. The petitioners herein, admittedly, were appointed by the Zilla Parishad. They, however, contend that their services were controlled by the third respondent herein. A writ petition being W.P.No.13823 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner No.1 herein questioning the inaction on the part of the State in absorbing them in the State service, which was allowed by this Court on 10-7-1995. When the matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 374 of 1996, a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 22-8-1996 held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition at the first instance since the proper forum was the Administrative Tribunal. In the aforementioned situation, the petitioners moved the learned Administrative Tribunal. The learned Administrative Tribunal arrived at a finding of fact to the effect that the petitioners were appointed by Zilla Parishad on a part-time basis. It was further found as of fact that the salaries of the petitioners were paid by the Zilla Parishad out of the amount of subsidy paid to it by the State. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal opined that the petitioners do not come within the purview of the G.O. in terms of the said finding, the Original Application was dismissed. 3. Mr. J.M. Naidu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners very strenuously argued that having regard to the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Act 48 of 1970), the petitioners should have been treated to be equivalent to the holders of degree of B.A.M.S., (Class-A) as the same had been specified in Schedule-II appended to the Act. J.M. Naidu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners very strenuously argued that having regard to the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Act 48 of 1970), the petitioners should have been treated to be equivalent to the holders of degree of B.A.M.S., (Class-A) as the same had been specified in Schedule-II appended to the Act. The learned counsel would contend that the stand taken by the State to the effect that since the petitioners possess only Vaidya Vidwan qualification, which has been recognized as Class-B under the provisions of the State Act, they are not entitled to be considered as equivalent to B.A.M.S., degree (Class-A), is not correct. 4. However, Mr. Naidu, despite our repeated query, had not been able to demonstrate before us that the petitioners' services had been transferred to the State by reason of any notification or by reason of any statute. In that view of the matter, we have no other option but to hold that the petitioners, being the employees of Zilla Parishad, cannot claim regularization of their services in terms of the G.O., particularly in view of the fact that a finding of fact has been arrived at to the effect that they are part-time employees. 5. Mr. Naidu then states that, although, the petitioners have been working for the last twenty years, they had not been paid due salary. Such a question cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court in this writ petition, particularly in view of the fact that Zilla Parishad is not a party before us. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel would urge that the State itself is contemplating to pay remuneration to the petitioners and the persons similarly situated on the scale of pay payable to the employees of the State in the same cadre. If the State comes out with a policy decision, the matter may be different; inasmuch as by reason of such a policy decision, the petitioners may become entitled to the scale of pay which is payable to the other regular employees of the State or Zilla Parishad. But in this writ petition, we cannot grant any relief in favour of the petitioners. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observations. No order as to costs.