S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 1-4-1998 in Writ Petition No. 19849 of 1996. The writ petitioner is Zilla Grandhalaya samstha Employees Association. It questioned Memo No. 15/lib. 2/95, dated 3-6-1995 and Memo No. 909/lib. 2/95 dated 22-3-1996 by reason whereof the proposal sent by the Director of Public Libraries for absorption of the attenders working in the Libraries functioning at Mandal headquarters in the district of Chittoor was negatived by the appellant inter alia on the ground that such benefit cannot be granted having regard to the provisions of the A. P. (Regulation of Appointments to public Services and rationalisation of Staff pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994) pursuant whereto certain clarifications were issued as regards the payment of wages to the part time workers in the branch libraries. In the said clarification it was inter alia directed that the applicant should be a major as also the appointees are clearly informed in their appointment order that they have to work six hours daily since branch library works for six hours a day. Part-time workers were appointed by the Library. Emoluments were fixed on hourly basis. ( 2 ) SOME of the part-time workers filed original applications in the Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal during the pendency whereof Act 2 of 1994 came into force. In terms of the provisions of the said Act admittedly the right to be regularised has been denied. ( 3 ) A scheme thereafter was made being G. O. Ms. No. 212, Finance and planning, dated 22-4-1994 as regards whereto, this Bench has delivered a judgment in Writ Appeal No. 366 of 2000, dated 27-4-2001. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that as regards part-time employees another G. O. Ms. No. l 12, dated 23-7-1997 was issued in terms whereof ten years continuous working was made a precondition for regularization of the concerned employees. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that as regards part-time employees another G. O. Ms. No. l 12, dated 23-7-1997 was issued in terms whereof ten years continuous working was made a precondition for regularization of the concerned employees. ( 5 ) THE said Act 2 of 1994 was amended in terms whereof two proviso were appended to Section 7 of the principal Act by Act 3 of 1998 which read: provided that the services of a person who worked on daily wage/nmr/consolidated pay/ contingent worker on full time basis continuously for a minimum period of five years and is continuing as such on the date of the commencement of the Act shall be regularised in accordance with the scheme, formulated in G. O. Ms. No. 212, Finance and planning (FW. PC. III) Department, dated the 22nd April, 1994: provided further that the services of a person who worked on part-time basis continuously for a minimum period of ten years and is continuing as such on the date of the commencement of this Act shall be regularised in accordance with the scheme formulated in GO. (P) 112 Finance and planning (FW. PC III) Department, dated 23rd July, 1997. ( 6 ) THE learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal inter alia held that the said amending Act was passed in a hurry. Drawing inspiration from Article 21 of the Constitution as also the decision of the apex Court in Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746 , it was observed that right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it namely the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and, mixing and mingling with fellow human beings. The learned single Judge also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in G. Gaddemma and others v. Government of A. P. , 1997 (4) ALD 214 , wherein it was held that even part-time employees are governed by G. O. Ms. No. 212 and their services have to be regularised as per the terms and conditions thereof. The learned single Judge also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in G. Gaddemma and others v. Government of A. P. , 1997 (4) ALD 214 , wherein it was held that even part-time employees are governed by G. O. Ms. No. 212 and their services have to be regularised as per the terms and conditions thereof. It was therefore held that the action of the concerned officer was not bona fide as despite the fact that a special leave petition was filed thereagainst and an order of status quo was granted, he did not wait for the decision of the said special leave petition by the apex Court. ( 7 ) BEFORE proceeding to consider the matter further we may at this juncture notice that the aforementioned judgment of the division Bench has been reversed by the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5225 arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 5535 of 1998 dated 26-10-1998 wherein a Division bench directed: the impugned judgment and order of the high Court is set aside. According to the counsel for the respondent, respondent No. 1 and 15 are full timers while respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are part-timers. Those who are in part time employment will get the benefit of g. O. (P) No. l 12, dated 23-10-1997 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, finance and Planning Department in terms of that G. O. Those who are in lull time employment will get the benefit of G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994 issued by the government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance and Planning Department in terms of that g. O. Ms. ( 8 ) THE learned single Judge inter alia directed: in the light of the above view taken by me, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is given to the respondents to regularise the services of the Attenders working in the libraries established under G. O. Ms. No. 269 dated 20-6-1986 with effect from 25-11-1993 in accordance with G. O. Ms. No. 212 Finance and Planning Department dated 22-4-1994 with all consequential benefits. The arrears due to the petitioner shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 9 ) THE learned Additional Advocate- general and Mr. No. 212 Finance and Planning Department dated 22-4-1994 with all consequential benefits. The arrears due to the petitioner shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 9 ) THE learned Additional Advocate- general and Mr. Goverdhanachari appearing on behalf of the appellants inter alia submitted that the learned single Judge went wrong in invoking G. O. Ms. No. 212 in the instant case. It was contended that the writ petitioner had neither any legal right to be regularised in services nor having regard to the decision of the Apex Court, any direction as lias been sought to be issued by the learned single Judge could be issued. Reliance in this connection has been placed on District Collector v. M. L. Singh, 1998 (2) ALT 5 (SC) and Periyar and Pareekanni rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, AIR 1990 sc2192. ( 10 ) THE learned single Judge did not take into consideration the effect and purport of amending Act 27 of 1998 which categorically provides for regularisation of the employees in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 212. The aforementioned G. O. Ms. No. 212 came up for consideration before the Apex Court in District Collector s case (supra) wherein it was stated:. . . . . . . . . . . . By the impugned judgment the division Bench of the High Court, while affirming with modification the order passed by the learned single Judge has directed that all employees who have completed five years of continuous service should be considered for regularisation in accordance with the terms of G. O. Ms. No. 212 dated April 22, 1994 and that they should be paid their wages on par with the wages paid to the permanent employees of that category. As regards payment of wages there is no dispute between the parties that the same have to be paid from the date of regularisation. Insofar as regularisation is concerned, we are of the view that the High court has rightly directed that on the basis of the Notification G. O. Ms. No. 212, the respondent employees shall be regularised with effect from the date or dates, they completed five years continuous service. It is, however, made clear that the other conditions laid down in the said G. O. Ms. No. 212, the respondent employees shall be regularised with effect from the date or dates, they completed five years continuous service. It is, however, made clear that the other conditions laid down in the said G. O. Ms. No. 212, will have to be satisfied for the purpose of regularisation. ( 11 ) IT is therefore evident from the decisions of the apex Court that whereas in relation to the full time employees G. O. Ms. No. 212 would apply, in relation to part time employees G. O. Ms. No. 112 will apply. ( 12 ) THE learned single Judge, therefore, in our considered opinion, was not correct in issuing the aforementioned directions, which evidently are contrary to the decision of the Apex Court. Furthermore, it is now a well settled principle of law that no employee has an absolute right of regularisation when conditions precedent therefor are prescribed under a statute, statutory rule or policy decision. The learned single Judge furthermore without adverting to the question as to how Section 7 (1) of act 2 of 1994 as amended by Act 3 of 1998 was unconstitutional directed it to be so being violative of Articles 14,21,39 (d) and 43 of the Constitution. The validity of the said Acts had not been questioned and in fact the question which came up for consideration before the learned single Judge was implementation of the aforementioned government Order only. The learned single judge formulated two questions for his decision which are: (i) Whether the Attenders working in the libraries functioning at the Mandal headquarters can be treated as part time employees? (ii) Even assuming without admitting that they are considered to be part-time employees, can the G. O. (P) No. 112 to which a statutory recognition was conferred under Act 3 of 1998, by amending Act 2 of 1994, be sustained in law on the touch stone of article 14 under which any arbitrary action is per se violative of the said article? ( 13 ) HAVING regard to the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court, which are binding on the High Court it must be held that answers to both the questions posed by the learned single Judge must be held to have been wrongly answered. ( 13 ) HAVING regard to the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court, which are binding on the High Court it must be held that answers to both the questions posed by the learned single Judge must be held to have been wrongly answered. ( 14 ) WE may further notice, although it is not necessary for this Court to go into such question at this stage, that some of the part-time employees have approached the andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in original Application Nos. 2257 and 2284 of 1990 for regularisation of their services as attenders and by an order dated 3-2-1995 a direction was issued directing the respondents to issue appropriate orders to the eligible candidates following G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-2-1994. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.