ORDER 1. Despite service respondents. 2. Leave granted. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30 - 4 - 2003 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in WA No. 499 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge directing regularisation of the services of the respondents was affirmed. 4. The short question which arose for consideration before the High Court as also before us is as to whether the respondents fulfilled the requirements for regularisation of their services as contained in the guidelines issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants before us is that the respondents did not fulfil the said conditions. The High Court, however, proceeded on the basis that the circular applies even to those who were engaged on contract labour on consolidated pay. 6. The High Court did not have the benefit of considering the recent decisions of this Court including the Constitution Bench judgment in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)1. In the said decision it has categorically been held that the appointments made on a contract basis or on daily wages and in violation of the statutory rules or the Rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, being void ab initio and thus nullities and hence the question of regularising their services would not arise. 7. The Constitution Bench in its judgment approved another Division Bench decision of this Court in A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies2 wherein this Court opined: (SCC p. 126, para 45) "45. No regularisation is, thus, permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules." 8. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of this Court, therefore, even no direction for regularisation could have been made on the basis of any guidelines issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Such guidelines, in any event, could not have been made even in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the aforementioned decisions of this Court, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. No costs.