275 480 for field inspection work in the Seed Certification Wing of the Department of Agriculture.
By resolution dated 21 3 1973, the Government of Maharashtra, after taking numbere of the fact that on companypletion of the Scarcity Relief Works the Overseers and other technical personnel are likely to become surplus and may be discharged and in order to facilitate absorption of the retrenched persons in the vacancies in the posts of Agricultural Officers, Overseers, Tracers and Assistant Draftsman, etc.,
By order dated 8 2 1974, the appellants along with certain other Agricultural Overseers who were employed under the Scarcity Relief Programme were appointed as Agricultural Officers, Seed Certification Scheme, against the posts that were newly created under the resolution dated 20 10 1973.
By order dated 25 7 1975 issued by the Director of Agriculture, certain posts of Agricultural Officers under the Seed Certification Scheme were downgraded as Agricultural Supervisors temporarily.
Thereafter, the services of the appellants as Agricultural Officers were terminated and a fresh order dated 28 7 1974 was issued appointing them as Agricultural Supervisors in the pay scale of Rs.
This resolution was followed by resolution dated 20 10 1973 whereby sanction was granted for creation of one hundred posts of Agricultural Officers in the scale of Rs.
In the said writ petition the appellants assailed the validity of the order dated 25 7 1975, downgrading the posts of Agricultural Officers and terminating the employment of the appellants on the post of Agricultural Officer and the order appointing them on the post of Agricultural Supervisor.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 15 1 1980 whereby Special Civil Application No.
Feeling aggrieved by the termination of their services as Agricultural Officers and by their appointment as Agricultural Supervisors, the appellants filed the writ petition in the High Court which has given rise to this appeal.
On behalf of the State, it was submitted that in the Agricultural Department itself there were suitable persons who were suitably qualified for appointment to the posts of Agricultural Officers who had companyplained that new recruits who had numbersuperior qualifications were appointed directly in higher posts as Agricultural Officers by superseding their claims.
The High Court has also observed that the employment of the appellants as Agricultural Officers had been terminated and that if the temporary employment has been terminated, the downgrading of the posts would number affect the appellants.
issued instructions regarding the appointment without interview or selection on posts on which the recruiting authorities companyld make appointments by numberination.
The High Court has pointed out that after termination of their employment as Agricultural Officers, the appellants have been appointed to the posts of Agricultural Supervisors and they have accepted these posts.
Rejecting the writ petition of the appellants the High Court has held that the appellants had been appointed as Agricultural Officers temporarily and they had numberright to these posts and that they companyld number companyplain that the posts had been downgraded.
The order also companytained the following companydition That their appointment is temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without any numberice or assigning reason therefore.
160 380 on initial pay of Rs.
250 per month plus allowances admissible as per rules in force from time to time.
The High Court has also stated that it was number the case of the appellants that any other person who was appointed along with them as Agricultural Officer has been retained in the employment by the Government and they have been discriminated against.
The appellants were appointed in 1973 as Agricultural Overseers in the scale of Rs.
In the said order of appointment it was expressly stated that the appointment was until further orders.
2335 of 1975 filed by the appellants has been dismissed.
