1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 15-1 -1980 whereby Special Civil Application No. 2335 of 1975 filed by the appellants has been dismissed.
2. The appellants were appointed in 1973 as Agricultural Overseers in the scale of Rs. 170-400 under the Scarcity Relief Programme undertaken by the Government of Maharashtra. By resolution dated 21-3-1973, the Government of Maharashtra, after taking note of the fact that on completion 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., issued instructions regarding the appointment without interview or selection on posts on which the recruiting authorities could make appointments by nomination. 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. 275-480 for field inspection work in the Seed Certification Wing of the Department of Agriculture. 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. In the said order of appointment it was expressly stated that the appointment was "until further orders". The order also contained the following condition :
That their appointment is temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without any notice or assigning reason therefore.
3. 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. 160-380 on initial pay of Rs. 250 per month plus allowances admissible as per rules in force from time to time.
4. 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. 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. 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 complained that new recruits who had no superior qualifications were appointed directly in higher posts as Agricultural Officers by superseding their claims. 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 no right to these posts and that they could not complain that the posts had been downgraded. 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 not affect the appellants. 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. The High Court has also stated that it was not 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.
5. Shri Qureshi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the appointment of the appellants as Agricultural Officers under order dated 8-2-1974 was under the Scheme for absorption contained in the resolution dated 21-3-1973 and since the said Scheme continues in force and has not been abrogated, the appellants could not be downgraded from the post of Agricultural Officer to the post of Agricultural Supervisor. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the appointment of the appellants on the posts of Agricultural Officers was intended to be permanent in nature and that the employment of the appellants as Agricultural Officers could not be terminated without good cause and that in the present case the State has not been able to show that there was good reason for terminating the services of the appellants. We do not find any merit in this submission. The resolution dated 21-3-1973 does not proceed on the basis that the absorption of the surplus staff employed under the Scarcity Relief Programme is to be made on a permanent basis. The said resolution only postulates absorption of retrenched persons in the various vacancies in the posts of Agricultural Officers, Overseers, Tracers and Assistant Draftsmen which are available in other departments. Thereafter, by resolution dated 20-10-1973, one hundred posts of Agricultural Officers were sanctioned under the Seed Certification Scheme and the appellants were appointed on those newly-created posts. The said resolution also does not say that the newly-created posts of Agricultural Officers would be permanent posts. There was, therefore, nothing to preclude the State Government from taking a decision to downgrade the posts of Agricultural Officers under the Seed Certification Scheme which were created under the resolution dated 20-10-1973 to that of Agricultural SupervisOrs. The High Court has rightly held that the appellants cannot make a grievance regarding the said downgrading of the posts of Agricultural Officers. In their order of appointment dated 8-2-1975 it is expressly mentioned that the appointment of the appellants on the posts of Agricultural Officers was temporary and was liable to be terminated at any time without any notice or assigning reason therefore. The employment of the appellants on the posts of Agricultural Officers was terminated in accordance with the said condition in the order of appointment. After such termination of their employment they were appointed as Agricultural Supervisors and they have joined on those posts. Since the appointment of the appellants on the post of Agricultural Officer was temporary in nature and they had no right to hold the said post, the action of the State Government in terminating the employment of the appellants as Agricultural Officers and appointing them as Agricultural Supervisors does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
6. The Contention urged by the learned Counsel that the said action of the State Government suffers from the vice of arbitrariness cannot also be accepted. In justification of its action the stand of the State Government is that the appointment of the appellants on the higher posts of Agricultural Officers had created dissatisfaction among the staff employed in the Agricultural Department who were suitably qualified for appointment to the post of Agricultural Officer at the time when the appellants and other Agricultural Overseers declared surplus were appointed as Agricultural Officers and who felt that their claims had been superseded by such appointment. It cannot be said that the said grievance could not be validly taken into consideration by the State Government. As amongst the Agricultural Overseers who were appointed as Agricultural Officers, the High Court has found that the appellants have not been able to show that any other person who was appointed along with them as Agricultural Officer has been retained by the Government in employment and the appellants have been discriminated against.
7. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.