Judgment 1. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated June 21, 1989 passed by the learned trial Judge in Civil Order No. 11095 (W) of 1988. By the aforesaid order, the learned trial judge allowed the writ petition and quashed Memorandum being NO. 727-L. Ref dated 21st July, 1988 (Annexure 'o' to the writ petition) and No. 729-L. Ref dated 21st July, 1988 (Annexure 'p' to the writ petition) and Notification lb. 49-L. Ref dated February 18, 1989 (Annexure 'c' to the affidavit-in-opposition). The relevant facts for the appreciation of the disputes involved in the writ petition may be stated as follows. The existing land tenure system was changed by abolishing zamindari and other intermediate tenancy and raitwari tenancy by the introduction of the West Bengal estates Acquisition Act, 1953. By a notification dated august 7, 1954, rules for recruitment to the post of junior land Reforms Officer were framed in exercise of the powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such rules for recruitment were subsequently amend by directing at District Kanungo and revenue Officer would be selected for appointment to the post of junior Land Reforms Officer (hereinafter referred to as JLRO). By notification dated September 8, 1967, the Government of West Bengal Subordinate Land revenue Service Grade I. By the same notification, rules for recruitment to the West Bengal Subordinate land Revenue Service Grade I under proviso to Article 309 were framed. It has been provided in the said rules that Circle inspectors, Kanango, Grade II and Zilladars who have rendered service for at leas,t five years will be eligible to be promoted to the West Bengal Subordinate Land Revenue service Grade I. On June 10, 1968, notification No. 7292-L. Ref. was issued. It was stated in the said notification that "in Notification No. 14863-L. Ref. dated September b, 1967, a new service known as 'west Bengal Subordinate land Revenue, Service, Grade - I' has been constituted and the Rules for recruitment to the service has been framed. The new service has been constituted with the idea of combining the posts in orders indicated below under the Land and Land Revenue Department and Board of Revenue, West Bengal, into one service. The new service has been constituted with the idea of combining the posts in orders indicated below under the Land and Land Revenue Department and Board of Revenue, West Bengal, into one service. i) Settlement Kanungo, Grade I; ii} Assistant Compensation Officers: iii) Junior land Reforms Officers; iv) Revenue Officers (Loans); v) land Acquisition Kanungo; vi) Permanent settlement Kanungos; vii) Bhagchas Officers; viii) Enquiring Officers (Land Acquisition department and 1st land Acquisition collector's Officer); ix) Assistant Canal Revenue Officers; x) Settlement Kanungos, Land Acquisition Kanungos and junior Land Reforms officers on deputation to other departments. 2. THE question of absorption of existing personnel in different cadres has been considered by Government. It has been decided that the existing incumbents in the different cadres implicated above should be absorbed in the said service. The Governor, is, therefore, pleased to direct that the existing incumbents of the orders mentioned above whether permanent, temporary, quasi-permanent or with permanent status be absorbed in the said service in their same capacity with effect from the 1st April, 1968, 3. FORMAL orders of appointment will issue in due course, tending issue of formal orders, the existing incumbents are authorised to draw their present pay and allowances, 4. THE cadres mentioned above should be treated as defunct as soon as the subscription of the existing incumbents in the West Bengal subordinate Land Revenue services, Grade -I is completed. Vacancies that would occur in the different order in tine process absorption should not be filled up. The officers on their absorption in the new service will continue to draw their existing basic pay, in the scale of Rs, 300-10-400/-, they will draw their next increment on the date on which such incumbent would have fallen due had they not been absorbed in the service now constituted. In addition they will draw D. A. and allowances as admissible under the existing rules. "3. On March 23, 1972, a notification was issued by the Board of Revenue, Government of West Bengal indicating the reorganisation to be made in the existing land reforms set up from 1. 4. 72 or soon thereafter. It was stated in the said notification that the question of reorganising the administrative structure in the district for proper maintenance of land records, implementation of land reforms measures and collection of land revenue etc. 4. 72 or soon thereafter. It was stated in the said notification that the question of reorganising the administrative structure in the district for proper maintenance of land records, implementation of land reforms measures and collection of land revenue etc. had been under consideration of Government for sometime past and after careful consideration of all aspects of the matter the Governor has been pleased to direct that re-organisation in the set up would be made from 1. 4. 72 or soon thereafter. The scheme of organisational set up was indicated in the notification. By a notification dated December 17, 1982 some amendments relating to the rule's for recruitment to the West Bengal subordinate Land Revenue Service, Grade I were effected. The scheme for reorganisation in the land Reforms and land revenue administration was considered further and on 25th November, 1983 the land and land Reforms Department, Establishment Branch, Government of West Bengal. issued a notification on the subject of introduction of integrated set up and land reforms administration. The said notification reveals that "the land and land reforms Department had been considering for sometime the introduction of an integrated set-up of land reforms administration in which survey and settlement wing and the management wing would be integrated under a unified command and the land Reforms machinery would be spread out upto the Gram Panchayat level in systematic manner for better implementation of land reforms and land management matters. It has since been decided that the integrated set-up will be introduced simultaneously in ail the districts of the state. The new set up is indicated below land and land Reforms Department board of Revenue land Reforms Commissioner and Ex-officio Secretary Land and land Reforms, Deptt. and Addl. Member, Board of Revenue director of land Records and Survey and Ex-Officio Jt. land reforms Commissioner. Sub-Divisional Land and land Reforms Officer (at Sub-Divisional level) Officer-in-charge, Land and Land Reforms (at sub-divisional level) Officer-in-charge, land and land reforms (at Block level). i) Revenue Officer ii) Revenue Officer iii) Revenue Officer (L. R. Management) (Survey and Settlement) (Quasi Judicial) Revenue Inspector (at Gram Panchayet level) It has been further indicated in the said notification that although in the mew land reforms set up at the district and lower levels will be separate from the collectorate, the authority of the Collector and the S.D.O. in the matter of co-ordination at their respective levels will remain. The said notification also reveals that "it has been decided that the integrated set-up will be Introduced with effect from 1st, April, 1984. Necessary govt. orders sanctioning additional posts and settlement wings etc. will be issued in due course. In the meantime, it is requested that predatory work like arrangement for accommodation at different levels may be taken up immediately so that the change over from the existing system to the new one may take place smoothly." 4. The land Reforms Department of Government of west Bengal issued another notification dated April 7, 1984 on the subject of introduction of integrated set up of land Reforms Administration in the State. It was stated in the said notification that by the Government order dated November 25, 1983, the broad outline of the integrated set up of Land Reforms Administration was indicated. It is however considered necessary to spell out salient aspects of the scheme and the role of different authorities in the implementation of the Scheme. It has been stated that the scheme aims at integration of survey and settlement machinery under the Directorate of Land Records and Surveys and the management Machinery under the Collectorate under a unified command at all levels and spreading ait. administrative machinery up to the Gram Panchayet level so as to ensure gradual switchover to raypatwari system of land Reforms Administration and continuous updating of record of rights. It was also indicated in the said notification that there will be four tiers of the integrated set-up at the levels of (i) Gram Panchayet, (ii) C. D. Block, (iii) Sub-Division and (iv) District. The basic administrative machinery at the Gram Panchayet level will be the office of the revenue Inspector under the charge of a Revenue Inspector who will be equivalent in rank to Kanungo II/circle Inspector. The Revenue Inspector will be assisted by a Bhumi sahayak and other staff. Separate Government orders constituting the cadres of Revenue Inspectors' and Bhumi Sahayaks will follow. At the C. D. Block level, there will be the office of the Officer-in-Charge, Land and Land reforms B or Camps of the Settlement Organisation will be merged into the, office. The Revenue Inspector will be assisted by a Bhumi sahayak and other staff. Separate Government orders constituting the cadres of Revenue Inspectors' and Bhumi Sahayaks will follow. At the C. D. Block level, there will be the office of the Officer-in-Charge, Land and Land reforms B or Camps of the Settlement Organisation will be merged into the, office. This office will be under the charge of an officer of the rank of the B. R. O. II/l. R. O. II with three wings under the subordinate charge of an officer of the rank of kanungo I/jlro to be called revenue Officer (L. R. and Management), Revenue Officer (Survey and Settlement) and Revenue Officer (Quasi-judicial). The set up at the sub-divisional and District: level was also indicated in the said notification. 5. In continuation of the said notification dated april 7, 1984 a Government order dated February 25, 1985 was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department. It was stated, inter alia, in the Government carder that the Governor was pleased to accord sanction to the creation of 1093 temporary posts in the grade of the West bengal Subordinate land Revenue, Service, Grade -I for the period upto February 28, 1985 for the present with effect from the date of issue of this order as per distribution shown in the order. The posts were created in connection with the (implementation of the Scheme of integrated set up of land Reforms Administration in this state. The posts created will be filled up by the members of the West Bengal Subordinate land Revenue Service Grade i, who on appointment will draw their respective grade pay and allowances as admissible under the rules. It was further stated in the said Government order "the posts created in this order are in lieu of an equal number of existing posts of Settlement Kanungo, Grade -I, Junior land Reforms Officer etc. out of the total strength of 1634 (one thousand six hundred and thirty four) such posts borne in the West Bengal Subordinate land Revenue service, Grade -I sanctioned for the management wing (Land reforms Establishment) and the Settlement Organisation. out of the total strength of 1634 (one thousand six hundred and thirty four) such posts borne in the West Bengal Subordinate land Revenue service, Grade -I sanctioned for the management wing (Land reforms Establishment) and the Settlement Organisation. With effect from the date/dates of filling up the posts, created in this order, all the existing 369 (three hundred sixty nine) sanctioned posts of Junior Land Reforms Officer an the management wing and 724 (seven hundred twenty four posts of settlement Kanungo, Grade -I, in the settlement wing of this administration shall be deemed to have been abolished. "It was also indicated that the order was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. The Land and land Department also issued a notification on 21st July, 1988. It was stated in the said notification that a scheme of integrated set up of Land Reforms Administration in the State has been introduced. In exercise of power under Rule 28 of the West Bengal land Reforms rules, 1965, the Governor was pleased to direct that west Bengal land Management Manual, 1977 will stand amended mutandis in accordance with Government notification no. 727-L Ref. dated July 21, 1988, subject, to such directions, as may be issued from time to time. During the pendency of the writ proceeding out of which this appeal arises, another notification was issued on 18th February, 1989. It has been stated in the said notification that notification No. 727-L Ref dated 21st July, 1988, the scheme of integrated set up of land reforms administration mas introduced. But in view of the interim order passed by this court in a writ petition moved by same of the jlros, no effect would be given to the said notification. The said interim order had been set aside in F. M. A. T. No. 3679 of 1988 and as such there was no bar to the creation of posts of the Revenue Officer in pursuance of the said notification dated July 21, 1988. As the implementation of the scheme did not brook any delay and the State Government considered it extremely urgent to create the post of Revenue Officer, the Governor was pleased to accord sanction to the creation of 1093 permanent posts of Revenue Officer in Block Land and Land reforms Officers in lieu of 724 existing posts of Kanungo, grade, I and 369 existing posts of JLRO. It may be men tioned here that although this notification was made known to the writ petitioners, no challenge was made to this notification. But this notification along with two other notifications were quashed by the learned trial judge on the ground that this notification was inextricably connected with two other impugned memos. When at the hearing of this appeal the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants had contended that the said notification not having been challenged in the writ proceeding, there was no scope to quash the same and the writ petition must fail or become infructuous if this notice would remain operative, an amendment application was made inter alia challenging this notification. It may be noted here that the learned Advocate General in his fairness has submitted that the State Government had no intention to steal a march on any technical ground and squarely on the merits of the case, the State Governments would intend to succeed. 6. The learned trial judge has held inter alia that the State Government in exercise of its executive power can create post, service or cadre. In the West bengal Subordinate Revenue Service, Grade I, there is no post of Revenue Officer and as such the Revenue Officers do not form a cadre. Even if it is assumed that the Revenue Officers form a cadre in West Bengal Subordinate Land Revenue Service, Grade I, JLROs being the numbers of a separate cadre cannot be transferred to the cadre of Revenue Officers. The learned trial Judge has also held that the JLROPs without their consent cannot be shunted out of their cadre. The learned trial judge has also held that assurance of equivalence in pay, rank, status etc. point out that the posts are not the same or the posts do not belong either to the same service or to the same cadre. Be has also held that JLROs there heads of their offices and many of their potters and functions have been taken away in the scheme of integrated set up. Mere monetary equivalence is a poor substitute for the equivalence of status and rank and mere declaration of equivalence without adopting the same in actuality will be of no consequence. Be has also held that JLROs there heads of their offices and many of their potters and functions have been taken away in the scheme of integrated set up. Mere monetary equivalence is a poor substitute for the equivalence of status and rank and mere declaration of equivalence without adopting the same in actuality will be of no consequence. The learned trial judge has also held that the last notification dated February 21, 1989 is the most vital one translating into action the scheme of integrated set-up and as such the said notification is also liable to be struck down. In that view of the matter he allowed the writ petition and quashed the three notifications as indicated hereinbefore. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned trial Judge, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of west Bengal and its officers. 5. THE learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants has very strongly contended that the State government had been anxiously considering about changes in the administrative set up of the Land and land Reforms department. As far back as in 1972 intention to change the administrative set up was clearly indicated. There after a scheme for, reorganisation of the said set up was further indicated in the notification dated November 25, 1583. Thereafter othsr notifications were issued and as a follow up measure several notifications including the said notification dated February 21, 1989 was issued. Mr. Advocate General has contended that the initial decision of the State Government in the matter of scheme for reorganisation of administrative set up in the Land and land Reforms Department of the Government was indicated in the notifications or memorandum dated november 28, 1983 and April 7, 1984. Such notifications or memoranda were challenged on behalf of the JLROs in c. R. No. 3744 (w) of 1985 (Barindra Nath Bose and Ors. VS. State of West Bengal) in which exparte interim order was passed. In this said writ petition, sri Mukunda Chandra Chatterjee who happens to be the Secretary of the west Bengal Junior Land Reforms Officers' Association and also petitioner in the instant writ petition was one of the writ petitioners. The subsequent notification or orders issued pursuant to the said scheme already under challenge in CR. In this said writ petition, sri Mukunda Chandra Chatterjee who happens to be the Secretary of the west Bengal Junior Land Reforms Officers' Association and also petitioner in the instant writ petition was one of the writ petitioners. The subsequent notification or orders issued pursuant to the said scheme already under challenge in CR. N. 3744 (w) of 1985 should have been challenged by amending the writ petition in C. R. No. 3744 (W) of 1985 because the subsequent orders or notifications have bearing on the lis involved, in C. R. No. 3744 (W) of 1988 should have been entertained thereby encouraging multiplicity of proceedings. On that score, c. O. No, 11895 (W) of 1988 is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Advocate General has submitted that in C. R. No. 3744 (W) of 1985 an application for vacating exparte interim order was made by the State of West Bengal. On a contested hearing, an order was passed in June 3, 1988 that on consideration of balance of convenience and in convenience the administrative decision of the Government as regards integration of the Land Reforms Administration should not be throttled by this Court. After recording the statement of the learned Advocate General that as the petitioners belonged to the West Bengal Subordinate land Revenue Service, Grade -I, there would be no change in the service condition, the learned Judge directed inter alia that interim order would continue till appropriate Government order would he passed as regards the scheme, if not already framed, in regard to integrated set up of the land Reforms Administration in the State. It was held that the State Government would be at liberty to issue necessary formal orders in regard to the said scheme if not already issued. It was also directed that in the event the scheme would he introduced the status, pay scale, seniority in service, promotion prospects and the rank of the members of the said service, who were then serving as J. L. R. Os or Kanungos Grade -I could not be altered or affected in any manner. It was also directed that in the event the scheme would he introduced the status, pay scale, seniority in service, promotion prospects and the rank of the members of the said service, who were then serving as J. L. R. Os or Kanungos Grade -I could not be altered or affected in any manner. Be has submitted that pursuant to the liberty granted by the aforesaid order the scheme as contained in notification dated July 21, 1988 was framed and in para 14 of the said scheme it was specifically indicated that pay-scale, status, seniority in service, promotional prospects and rank of the officers and other members of the staff of the management wing, survey and settlement wing would not be adversely affected. It was expressly stated in the said notification that the integrated set up scheme should be completed at different levels as early as possible subject to the decision in the writ petition and pending matters if any before this Court. The said order of the learned Judge dated June 3, 1983 was not challenged in appeal and the same became final. In that view of the matter the writ petition out of which this appeal arises was not maintable and the same was made in gross abuse of the process of law. Unfortunately, when pursuant to the liberty given by this Court the notification dated july 21, 1988 was issued another writ petition giving rise to C. O. No. 11095 (w) of 1988 was moved on October 11, 1988 before another learned Judge of this Court and an exparte interim order was obtained. As aforesaid, sri Mukunda Chatterjee was one of the petitioners in c. R. No. 3744 (W) of 1985 and he is the writ petitioner representing the West Bengal Junior land Reforms Officers association as its Secretary. The State of West Bengal thereafter preferred an appeal against the exparte interim order and after contested hearing the said order was set aside in F. M. A. T. No. 3679 of 1988 on February 16, 1989, Immediately, thereafter notification dated February 18, 1989 was issued and the Government tried to implement the scheme without any delay. By the Government order contained in the said notification posts of Kanungo Gr. I and J. L. R. O. were abolished and simultaneously posts of Revenue Officers were created. By the Government order contained in the said notification posts of Kanungo Gr. I and J. L. R. O. were abolished and simultaneously posts of Revenue Officers were created. It may be noted in this connection that the writ petitioners moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order of the Court of appeal. But the said order or the notification made pursuant to the liberty given by the order was not stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and direction was given for early hearing of the writ petition. Mr. Advocate general after referring to the scheme and orders made for reorganisation of the administrative set up of the land Reforms Department has submitted that the newly created posts of Block Land and Land Revenue Officers shall be equivalent to the rank of existing Special Revenue Officer, Grade II and Land Reforms Officer, Grade 11. Such officers were previously connected with the land Reforms Administration in the sub-divisional level. Theses posts were also superior and promotional posts for JLROs and Kanungo Grade I. These officers, under the new set up have been brought down from the sub-divisional level to block level where there will be three branches namely (i) survey and settlement, (ii) Land Reforms, Land Management and (iii) Quasi Judicial matters. Under the Bock Land and Land Reforms Officers there shall be one or more Revenue Officers attached to the said three wings and their ranks will be equivalent to that of the member of the West Bengal Subordinate Land revenue Service Grade-1. This means that JLRO and K. G. O. Grade-1 who were members of the West Bengal Land Subordinate Land Revenue Service Grade I will now be designated. as Revenue Officers and will remain under the control of Block Land and Land Reforms Officers. The Block land and land Reforms Officers still remain the promotional posts for JLRO and KGOI now consistuting the new designation of Revenue Officer in the Integrated set up. Hence, their promotional prospect has not been affected in any manner. Mr. Advocate General has submitted that there are several thousand employees under the land and Land reforms Department and other employees have already joined their respective posts in the new set up. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officers have been brought down from sub-divisional level to the black level, but they have not challenged the reorganisation and have joined the new post. The Block Land and Land Reforms Officers have been brought down from sub-divisional level to the black level, but they have not challenged the reorganisation and have joined the new post. Mr. Advocate General has submitted that if by the unreasonable and illegal obduracy of the erstwhile jlros, the scheme cannot be implemented at Block level the entire hierarchy will be affected and the attempt to reorganise the set up will fail. He has submitted that the stand taken by the writ petitioners consisting of about only 100 JLROs is not only illegal and improper but the same has affected about 2500 other employees who do not feel aggrieved by the scheme of reorganisation of set up and have joined their respective posts under the changed set up. Mr. Advocate General has contended that the posts of JLROs and KGO Grade I have been in existence for a long time. By a notification dated September 8, 1867, the State Government constituted West bengal Subordinate Land Revenue service grade I. 6. BY the very same notification, the State Government in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution framed rules, regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the said Subordinate Land Revenue Service. The Secretary to the Board of Revenue made the appointing authority. The method of recruitment involved both direct recruitment and promotion from feeder posts. The nomenclature of the posts included in the said service were not mentioned or specified in the Recruitment Rules. By an order dated June 10, 1968 the State Government in exercise of its executive power directed that the incumbents of 10 cadres mentioned in the said order be absorbed in the said newly constituted Subordinate Revenue Service with effect from April 1, 1968. The ten cadres mentioned therein included JLRO and KGOI. By an order dated June 10, 1968 the State Government in exercise of its executive power directed that the incumbents of 10 cadres mentioned in the said order be absorbed in the said newly constituted Subordinate Revenue Service with effect from April 1, 1968. The ten cadres mentioned therein included JLRO and KGOI. He has submitted that previously JLRO was a separate cadre having separate rules for recruitment but after the said order, JLROs became the members of the newly formed cadre of service namely the said Subordinate land Revenue Service Grade i. By the Government order dated June 10, 1968 it was specifically ordered that the said 10 cadres, now forming a monocadre of Subordinate Land Reforms Service Grade I should be treated as defunct as soon as the absorption of the existing incumbents in the newly constituted service would be completed and the vacancies that would appear in the said 10 cadre in the process of absorption would not be filled up. Mr. Advocate General has stated that it is very pertinent to note that none of the JLROs who have not yet joined the post of Revenue Officer under the impugned reorganised set up was appointed JLRO prior to April 1, 1968. All of them having been appointed as jlros after 1. 4. 1968, in law they have the right flowing from their being members of the monocadre namely the said Subordinate Land Revenue service Grade- I. Hence, they cannot have any claim or any alleged or supposed right as officers belonging to the so-called cadre of jlro which became non existent long back. Mr. Advocate general has submitted that order dated February 18, 1989 is a follow up action of the scheme of the integrated set up published by notification dated July 21, 1988. The first part of the said order dated 18. 2. 1989 is creation of 1903 permanent posts of Revenue Officers in lieu of 724 existing posts of KGOI and 369 existing posts of JLROs. In exercise of executive power of the State government. The first part of the said order dated 18. 2. 1989 is creation of 1903 permanent posts of Revenue Officers in lieu of 724 existing posts of KGOI and 369 existing posts of JLROs. In exercise of executive power of the State government. The second part of the said order comprised in para 3 has been made in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution wherein it has been provided that the posts of Revenue Officer, as created in the new set up shall be filled up by appointment of the members of the said Subordinate land Revenue Service holding the posts of KGO-I and JLRO. It has been further provided that on appointment of the members of the said service, the posts of K. G. O. I and JLRO shall stand abolished simultaneously. As aforesaid it has been specifically mentioned in tide order dated February 18, 1989 that members of the said Land Revenue Service then holding the posts of K. G. O. I and JLRO shall on appointment to the post of Revenue Officer in the reorganised set-up continue to enjoy the same benefits with respect to their payscale, seniority, status, rank and promotional prospects as were lawfully admissible to them as J. L. R. O. or K. G. O. I. Mr. Advocate General has contended that under article 162 of the Constitution, the executive powers of the State shall extend to the matter with respect to which the legislature of the State has power to make laws. Under Entry 41 of list 11 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution the State legislature has power to make laws with respect to State Public Service and State Public commission. Hence, the State Government in exercise of its power under Article 162 read with Entry 41 of List ii can lawfully create and abolish services and post and can lawfully amalgamate, separate and re-designate different cadres and posts. Such exercise of power can be lawfully made if any Rule regulating recruitment and conditions of service framed under proviso to Article 309 are in no way affected. He has submitted that there is no manner of doubt that State Government can amalgamate the posts of K. G. 0. I. and J. L. R. Os. Such exercise of power can be lawfully made if any Rule regulating recruitment and conditions of service framed under proviso to Article 309 are in no way affected. He has submitted that there is no manner of doubt that State Government can amalgamate the posts of K. G. 0. I. and J. L. R. Os. out of different posts included in the said Subordinate Land Revenue Service Grade I and could re-designate the amalgamated post of J. L. R. O. and K. G. O. I as Revenue Officer. If such action has been taken lawfully and bonafide and within the powers of the State Government, no exception can be made to the said amalgamation and re-designation as revenue Officer. He has also submitted that as it has been specifically mentioned in the Government order that j. L. R. O. and K. G. O. I now constituting Revenue Officer in the integrated set up shall enjoy all benefits of pay, status and promotional prospects which they have been enjoying as members in the said Subordinate land revenue Service, the J. L. R. O. or K. G. O. I cannot have any grievance against the amalganation and re-designation of the posts as Revenue Officer. In support of this contention, Mr. Advocate General has referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court. In Union of India Vs. Arm Kumar Roy ( AIR 1986 SC 737 ), the Supreme Court has reiterated that power of the State Government under Article 309 to make rules, to regulate service conditions of its employees are very wide and unaffected. These powers can be exercised unilaterally without the consent of the employees. Once appointed the Government servant acquires a status and thereafter its position is not governed by contract of appointment. In K. S. Vora Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1987 SIC 2348) the Supreme Court has laid down that the Government's decision to create a common cadre with four grades in the entire Secretariat cannot be challenged as the Government is competent to do the same. In that case for some employees in the fied cadre there was likelihood to affect promotional prospects. State of Gujarat (AIR 1987 SIC 2348) the Supreme Court has laid down that the Government's decision to create a common cadre with four grades in the entire Secretariat cannot be challenged as the Government is competent to do the same. In that case for some employees in the fied cadre there was likelihood to affect promotional prospects. But the Supreme Court has held that even though prospects of promotion in future were likely to be pre judiced by introduction of new set of rules to regulate inter se seniority if such rules are bonafide and to meet exegencies of service, no entertainable grievance can be made. In Reserve Bank of_india Vs. N. C. Paliwal (AIR 1976 SC 2 345), the Supreme Court has laid down that integration of different cadres into one cadre cannot be said to violate equality clause. It is entirely a matter for the State to decide whether to have several different cadres or one integrated cadre. That is a matter of policy which does not attract the applicability of equality clause. The integration of non-clerical with clerical service alleged to be affected by the combined seniority scheme can not be assailed as violative of constitutional principle of equality. Mr. Advocate General has submitted that only about 100 J. L. R. Os being actuated by the motive of self-interest have not joined the post in the new set up as Revenue Officer and has been trying to frustrate the scheme of integrated set up. Such challenge is not only malafide but also unsustainable in a court of law. He has submitted that the learned trial judge completely misconceived the facts and circumstances of the case and has proceeded on the erroneous view that j. L. R. Os formed a separate cadre and against their consent they were de-categorised. He has submitted that is has been amply demonstrated that J. L. R. Os did not form any separate cadre but along with K. G. O. I and others they belonged to a mon cadre of the said Subordinate land revenue Service Grade I. Even if it is assumed that they belonged to a separate cadre, the State Government cars amalgamate them within another cadre comprising K. G. O. I and form a new service or cadre designated as Revenue officer. As such formation has not offended any legislation or Rules framed under proviso to Article 309, of the Constitution and salary, allowances, chances of promotion etc. have been expressly protected, there was no occasion to quash the impugned Government orders and also the un-impugned Government order dated February 21, 1989. He has, therefore, submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed by allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment passed by the learned trial judge. 7. MR. Kashikanta Moitra, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners respondents, has submitted that the exact scheme as alleged to have been framed has not been produced by the State Government for the perusal of the Court. The writ petitioners are in dark as to the exact nature of the scheme. The notification no. 1 Ref. 727 dated 21. 7. 1 988 is. not the scheme but a document introducing a scheme. Introduction presupposes bringing something in existence. Hence, some outline of the scheme has been indicated. As a matter of fact, some scheme was also outlined long back in 1983 and 1984. Mr. Moitra has submitted that the posts of J. L. R. Os and k. G. O. I. are sought to be abolished and a new class of officer namely Revenue Officer is sought to be created pursuant to an alleged scheme. If the scheme has not been finally framed but only outline has been indicated, the purported action purporting to abolish the post of j. L. R. 0 or K. G. 0. I is not only misconceived and malafide but also illegal. Mr. Moitra has submitted that on 3.6.1988 when interim order was passed in C. R. No. 3744 (W) of 1985, the exact scheme was not produced but it was submitted that scheme was indicated in notification dated 21.7.1988. He has submitted that pursuant to the scheme indicated in 198 3 the date for implementation of the scheme for integrated set up was 14.4.1984. Hence, it is quite evident that till today no exact scheme has been framed. When particular actions of the Government in furtherance of an alleged scheme are challenged as malafide and illegal, the State Government and other respondents had an obligation to produce record of the case to the Court to show that a scheme has been finally framed bonafide and lawfully and steps for implementation of the scheme are being taken. When particular actions of the Government in furtherance of an alleged scheme are challenged as malafide and illegal, the State Government and other respondents had an obligation to produce record of the case to the Court to show that a scheme has been finally framed bonafide and lawfully and steps for implementation of the scheme are being taken. There is nothing secret in a scheme for integrated set up of the land Reforms administration. Unless in any matter security of State is involved, there cannot be any justification to withhold production of records showing state action under challenge. In this connection, Mr. Moitra has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1962 SC page 149 wherein the Supreme Course defrecated withholding of records on the score of secrecy. Mr. Moitra has submitted that on the basis of the result in West Bengal civil Service (Executive) Group 'c' examination successful candidates have been appointed in West Bengal Subordinate revenue Service Grade I, Mr., Moitra has contended that absorption of all the 10 cadres forming Subordinate Land revenue Service Grade I has not yet been completed. He has submitted that Memo No. 8822 Appl. dated 3. 10. 86 being annexure 'c' to the application for amendment reveals that excepting these attached to Compensation, land Acquisition or other wing, other persons in the land Revenue Subordinate Service are to be posted as revenue Officers in the integrated set up. Hence, J. L. R. O and K. G. O. I have been picked up for being appointed as Revenue Officers in the integrated set up. Since absorption of the 10 cadres have not been completed as yet, all the 10 cadres including the cadre' of J. L. R. O. are maintaining their distinct cadres and the learned trial judge is justified in holding that J. L. R. O. are maintaining their distinct cadres and the trial judge is justified in holding that J. L. R. O. has been sought to be de-categorised without consent. Mr. Moitra has submitted that the J. L. R. Os have already moved several writ petitions before this Court inter alia claiming pay and scale of W. N. C. S. (Executive) 'a' Group and various other amenities. Such writ petitions are pending and in some petitions appropriate interim orders passed by this Court are also pending. Mr. Moitra has submitted that the J. L. R. Os have already moved several writ petitions before this Court inter alia claiming pay and scale of W. N. C. S. (Executive) 'a' Group and various other amenities. Such writ petitions are pending and in some petitions appropriate interim orders passed by this Court are also pending. The instant writ proceeding, therefore, cannot be decided in isolation thereby making other writ petitions infructuous. If the J. L. R. Os. are allowed to be shunted out from their existing cadres and are allowed to be appointed as Revenue Officers. The relief claimed in the pending writ proceeding for higher scale of pay and superior posting will be infructuous. He has submitted that in order to frustrate other pending writ petitions moved by the J. L. R. Os and to deprive them of their legitimate status, scale of pay and promotional avenue, the alleged scheme though not yet finalised has been sought to be implemented so that the power, position and status of the JLROs are prejudicially affected. Mr. Moitra has submitted that the guarantee or assurance of same pay to the Revenue Officer in the integrated set up is no consolidation and the learned trial judge has rightly held that mere monetary equivalence is poor substitute for the equivalence of status and rank. Mr. Moitra has also submitted that during the continuance of interim orders passed in other pending writ proceedings, the cadre of J. L. R. 0. is not interchangeable with any other cadre. 8. MR. Moitra has also submitted that notification dated. 18/2/1989 is not the notification indicating service conditions and recruitment rules. A notification providing for service conditions or recruitment rules of a cadre should contain the following particulars in details - (i) name of the post, (ii) appointing authority, (iii) method of recruitment, (iv) educational qualification, (v) age limit, (vi) pay scale etc. etc. In the absence of such essential particulars, it cannot be said that in exercise of power under proviso to article 309 service conditions and recruitment rules for the service in the integrated set up have been framed. The memo dated 18. 2. 1989 is essentially an executive order in exercise of the power under article 162 of the Constitution. Mr. In the absence of such essential particulars, it cannot be said that in exercise of power under proviso to article 309 service conditions and recruitment rules for the service in the integrated set up have been framed. The memo dated 18. 2. 1989 is essentially an executive order in exercise of the power under article 162 of the Constitution. Mr. Moitra has submitted that the attempt if any in purporting to frame service rules in exercise of power under proviso to April 309 in notification dated 18/2/1 989 is a colourable exercise of power calculated to create further prejudice to the J. L. R. Os. Mr. Moitra has submitted that in gross violation of the interim order in the pending writ petition restraining the State Government for abolishing the permanent posts of J. L. R. O. and creation of temporary posts in lieu thereof and from transferring and/or posting any J. L. R. O. which is not in the cadre post within the frame work of W. B. C. S. (Executive) Group 'a' and also restraining the State Government from changing, altering or modifying the position or status or designation of J. L. R. O., the memo dated February 18, 1 989 was issued. Such action is contumacious and an attempt to interfere with the course of administration of justice. Mr. Moitra has submitted it is immaterial whether for such improper and illegal action a proceeding for contempt can be made or such proceeding for contempt is pending. The Court in order to prevent blatant miscarriage of justice should quash illegal Government orders. He submits that the learned trial Judge was justified in doing so. In this connection Mr. Moitra has referred to the decisions reported in AIR 1974 SC 642 and air 1983 Patna 13. Mr. Moitra in this connection has also referred to a Supreme Court decision made in Gobind sahai Vs. State of U. P. reported in AIR 1968 SC 1513 . Mr. Moitra has submitted that ever since the abolition of zamindary and pre independent land tenure system, j. L. R. Os have been entrusted with very responsible duties and functions including quasi-judicial functions. J. L. R. Os have rendered very valuable and commendable service all through out. But they have been denied proper status and scale of pay for which several writ petitions have been moved and the same are pending. J. L. R. Os have rendered very valuable and commendable service all through out. But they have been denied proper status and scale of pay for which several writ petitions have been moved and the same are pending. He has submitted that it is reasonably apprehended that by moving the writ court for their legitimate claim, J. L. R. OS. have incurred displeasure of the authorities concerned and in order to frustrate the pending writ and to humble the J. L. R. Os, and to deprive their legitimate status rank and pay etc. on the plea of an alleged scheme not yet fully finalised, they have been sought to be de-categorised and placed as subordinate at the block level. Mr. Moitra has submitted that representations made by the J. L. R. OS have not yet been disposed of. Mr. Moitra has contended that the representation of J. L. R. O. should not have remained unheeded. Mr. Moitra has submitted that if a Government employee is prejudicially affected for any change in the conditions of service including change in the cadre, Mr. Moitra has submitted that even in emergency situation compliance with leastminimum requirement of natural justice is essential and such com pliance is condition precedent for taqing any action which prejudicially affects a government employee causing loss of livelihood. Post decisional hearing in such case is of no consequence. In support of this contention Mr. Moitra has referred to the decisions of Supreme Court s. I. Shephard Vs. Union of India, reported in 1987 (A)SCC 43, and H. L. Trehan Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1989, SC 568. Referring to the decision of the supreme Court in Union of India Vs. P. K. Roy, AIR 1968 sc 850 , Mr. Moitra has contended that principle of natural justice cannot be preciously enumerated and it depends on facts and circumstances in each case. Mr. Moitra has contended that admittedly no hearing was given to the j. L. R. Os. Before taking unilateral decision to post them as Revenue Officers in the new set up. Such decision has very prejudicially affected the J. L. R. Os. Hence, such action must be held bad for violation of the basic principle of natural justice. Mr. Mr. Moitra has contended that admittedly no hearing was given to the j. L. R. Os. Before taking unilateral decision to post them as Revenue Officers in the new set up. Such decision has very prejudicially affected the J. L. R. Os. Hence, such action must be held bad for violation of the basic principle of natural justice. Mr. Moitra has co-intended that in appropriate case amalgamation or unification of cadres is permissible and such amalgamation car unification of cadres have been upheld by law courts including Supreme Court. But such amalgamation, unification of cadres etc. must be made bonafide and lawfully after allowing the employees likely to be prejudicially affected an opportunity of being heard. He has contended the old archaic rule of master and servant and the pleasure doctrine in the relation of master and servant are not applicable to public employment. Simply because the executive authority has power to change conditions of service, such change cannot be effected on the jpsi dixit of the concerned authority. Any arbitrariness being antethesis of rule of law cannot but offend article 14 of the Constitution. In support of this contention, Mr. Moitra has referred to the decisions of the supreme Court in The Manager, Govt. Branch Press Vs. D. B. Balliappa ( AIR 1979 SC 429 ), Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel { air 1985 SC 1416 ,) and P. N. Kaushal Vs. Union of India ( AIR 1978 SC 1457 ). Mr. Moitra has submitted that in the facts of the case, the learned trial judge is justified in quashing the memos and no interference is called for in this appeal. 9. MR. Advocate General, in reply to the contention of mr. Moitra, has submitted that memo dated 18. 2. 1989 was issued pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court. Hence, there cannot be any question of contumacious disregard of any order of this Court. Mr. Advocate General has also contended that the other writ proceedings pending before this Court have no direct bearing on the implementation of the impugned scheme. Moreover, if the hearing of the writ petition out of which this appeal arises was likely to prejudicially affect other pending writ matters, the writ petitioners should have mentioned such facts and should have taken care to get other matters disposed of simultaneously. The wit petitioners chose to proceed with the matter. Moreover, if the hearing of the writ petition out of which this appeal arises was likely to prejudicially affect other pending writ matters, the writ petitioners should have mentioned such facts and should have taken care to get other matters disposed of simultaneously. The wit petitioners chose to proceed with the matter. Hence, they are estopped from contending that during the continuance of interim order in the other proceedings and pendency of the other proceeding this writ petition should not have been taken up Car hearing. Mr. Advocate Genera] has submitted that the decision in H. L. Trehan's case ( AIR 1989 SC 568 )has no application in the facts of this case. In that it was found that remuneration/income has been prejudicially affected. But in the instant case, remuneration, intense seniority, promotional prospects have been expressly maintained. Hence, question of prejudicial affectation does not arise. Mr. Advocate General has also submitted that in the decision made in R. T. Chaudhury Vs. Mansaram ( AIR 1974 SC 642 ) it has been held that any action taken by a party to a litigation bonafide and in honest exercise of right during in one or more claims in the. litigation becoming infructuous, will not amount to contempt. In this case, the State Government pursuant to a scheme under consideration from long time before the writ petition was moved and in lawful exercise of its authority, has issued the said notification after obtaining leave from this Court. Hence, such action cannot be held to have been taken malafide and contumaciously. He has also contended that no action has been taken in the instant case to penalise the J. L. R. Os or the petitioners became the petitioners have instituted a legal proceeding. Hence, decision made in Gobind Raj's case ( AIR 1968 SC 1513 ) has no manner of application. Mr. Advocate, General has submitted that there is no basis for the petitioners to contend that in order to frustrate the pending writ petitions, impugned orders were made. It has been amply demonstrated that for a long time the state Government was considering to effect changes in administrative set up in the Land and Land Reforms Department and a scheme was formulated and finalised and in order to give effect to the scheme consequential orders have been made. It has been amply demonstrated that for a long time the state Government was considering to effect changes in administrative set up in the Land and Land Reforms Department and a scheme was formulated and finalised and in order to give effect to the scheme consequential orders have been made. He has contended that the outline of the scheme was indicated earlier but the same was not finalised. There is no basis for the contention that the scheme has not been finalised and as such no action for implementation of the scheme is called for. 10. AFTER considering the respective contentions of the parties it appears to us that pre-independence land tenure system has undergone a very heavy change because of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and West bengal Land Reforms Act and series of amendments effected to the said acts from time to time. There is no manner of doubt that administration of land and Land reforms and revenue is required to be made very efficiently in order to achieve the purposes of the said Acts. The State government can not but have anxious desire for proper administration in this field. It cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that the State Government was unjustified in thinking about bringing changes in the administrative set up in the department of land, land revenue and land reforms. It should be borne in mind that policy decision in the matter of administration of State's various departments is the domain of the State government and the court can not embark upon unchartered ocean of public policy. So long a policy decision is contained within the executive power of the State Government and such policy does not infringe any statutory right or fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, the wisdom of a policy decision of the State Government is not a subject matter for consideration by the Court. Unless the aforesaid infringement can be established, the Court of law can not go into the question of merits and demerits of a policy decision. In the instant case it is quite evident that from 1983 onward the State Government had been thinking to bring about changes in the administrative set up of land, land revenue and land reforms departments. Notifications to that effect been published from time to time indicating the outlines of such change in the organisational set up. In the instant case it is quite evident that from 1983 onward the State Government had been thinking to bring about changes in the administrative set up of land, land revenue and land reforms departments. Notifications to that effect been published from time to time indicating the outlines of such change in the organisational set up. In our view there is no basis for contention that in order to frustrate the pending writ petitions moved by some of the j. L. R. OS for different relief relating to their service conditions the present four-tiered organisational set up has been introduced. It should be noted in this connections that if the State Government can effect changes in the administrative set up in one of its departments within the executive power, it can also bring successive changes from time to time. In our view the State Government will not outstep its limit if a scheme of reorganisation of administrative set up, once finalised is subject to further change. It is quite likely that a scheme formulated nay undergo further consideration. There may be fresh exigencies warranting a change in the scheme. It is quite evident that no scheme can remain static for all time to come. Dynamism is the essence of progress and such dynamism is reasonably expected in all actions in different spheres of human activities. The contention of Mr. Moitra that the scheme has not been finalised and when target date for implementing the scheme of organisational set up in the land and revenue department was fixed sometime in 1984 there was no occasion to deviate from the scheme and to issue impugned orders later on and such actions only and to issue impugned orders later on and such actions only indicate that the scheme has not been finalised but improper actions are being taken in order to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of the J. L. R. Os in the absence of any well defined scheme does not appear to be correct. We have indicated that change in the administrative set up was under consideration for a long time. Outline of the scheme was also indicated and in order to give effect to the scheme lastly made, consequential orders have been made. We have indicated that change in the administrative set up was under consideration for a long time. Outline of the scheme was also indicated and in order to give effect to the scheme lastly made, consequential orders have been made. Even if it is accepted that the target date for implementing a scheme was fixed in 1984, the State Government will not be lacking in authority to shift such date and to change the scheme at a later date. A very strong argument has been made by Mr. Moitra that a scheme for organisational set up cannot be a secret document production of which may pose threat to the security of the State. The Government has kept back details of the scheme to be made known to the petitioners and to the Court. It is, therefore, not certain whether any scheme has been finalised as a matter of fact. But on an indefinite scheme, still in the realm of consideration, serious changes in the service conditions of J. L. R. Os have been effected. We, however, do not accept such contention. The notifications indicated hereinbefore reveal a scheme of four tiered set up in the administration of land, land revenue and land reforms department of the State. The hierarchy of such administration has been clearly indicated. The question of holding back the scheme in the facts of the case does not arise. Hence, decisions on the question of propriety of the State Government to, place public documents before a court of law are not required to be considered for the disposal of this appeal. It appears to us that a definite scheme for four tiered administrative set up has been framed. Such scheme may undergo further changes in future but. at the present moment actions have been taken to implement a definite scheme for changing organisational set up in the land, land revenue and land reforms department. It will, therefore, not be correct to contend that even before finalising a scheme serious changes in service conditions of J. L. R. OS have been effected without any just cause. It also appears to us that J. L. R. Os did not form any separate cadre as alleged by the petitioners and found by the learned trial Judge. J. L. R. Os. It also appears to us that J. L. R. Os did not form any separate cadre as alleged by the petitioners and found by the learned trial Judge. J. L. R. Os. belonged to a mono cadre known as West Bengal Subordinate Land Revenue Service Grade I. Such cadre was formed by the State Government within its executive power and rules relating to service conditions of such cadre were also framed under proviso to Article 309 of the constitution. Distinction between a post and a cadre should not be lost sight of. Under a cadre there may be various posts and the holders of such posts may be assigned different types of duties and functions. But on that score such holders of different posts may not form different cadres. In this connection, an illustration may be given. Clerks, typists and stenographers may belong to a unified cadre but their duties and functions are different. It is also pertient to note in this connection that the J. L. R. Os including the writ petitioners in this appeal were appointed to the post of J. L. R. O after April, 1968 as pointed out by the learned Advocate General. They were appointed as members of the West Bengal Sub ordinate land Revenue Service Grade -I. It is true that the J. L. R. Os. have been entrusted with very responsible duties and functions and had also been entrusted with quasi judicial duties and functions. Their vital role in the administration of land, land revenue and land reforms activities should not be underestimated and it appears to us that they deserve proper appreciation from all concerned and it also appears to us that because of their long experience in performing different duties and functions, they should be gainfully utilised in responsible positions. We may, however, indicate that how best the service of an employee of the Government will be utilised must be left to the discretion of the state Government. It also appears to us that the petitioners did not take any initiative to have other pending writ matters disposed of either prior to the wit petition concerning this appeal or simultaneously with this writ petition. If the petitioners reasonably apprehended that disposal of this writ petition is likely to frustrate other pending matters, the petitioners ought to have taken necessary steps. If the petitioners reasonably apprehended that disposal of this writ petition is likely to frustrate other pending matters, the petitioners ought to have taken necessary steps. Having allowed this writ petition to be disposed of, they axe estopped from raising any such contention at this stage. It appears to us that the Government' s intention to implement the said scheme was always made known. The State Government moved petitions tot vacating interim orders passed in this writ petition and also in other pending matter. After obtaining leave of the court as indicated hereinbefore, notification dated February 18, 1989 was issued. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be held, in our view, that the action of the State Government was perse illegal and amounted to contempt of court. In our view, the learned advocate General is justified in his submission that in the facts and circumstances of the case the notice and/or prefer dated February 18', 1989 is not high handed or malafide amounting to interference with the course of administration of justice for which such order is liable to be quashed. Mr. Moitra has very strongly con tended that before effecting any change In the conditions of service of J. L. R. Os, a prior hearing ought to have been given and for not giving such hearing but unilaterally changing the conditions of service prejudicially the State action in that regard has become illegal. He has also contended that a post decision hearing cannot cure the defect for violating the basic principles of natural justice as indicated by the Supreme Court. It however, appears to us that in the impugned Government orders, pay, rank, interse seniority and promotional prospects have been expressly protected. It, therefore, does not prima facie appear that by redesignating the j. L. R. Os as Revenue Officers in the new set up, their conditions of service has been adversely affected. The government employees enjoy a status and their conditions of service are controlled by statutory provisions and not by contract. law is well settled that unilaterally conditions of service may be changed provided such change is made in proper exercise of executive and statutory power of the Government. There is no manner of doubt that the State Government can create a cadre and amalgamate different cadres. law is well settled that unilaterally conditions of service may be changed provided such change is made in proper exercise of executive and statutory power of the Government. There is no manner of doubt that the State Government can create a cadre and amalgamate different cadres. It can also separate a group of employees from one cadre and form a different cadre with such employees, if exegencies of the administration so warrant. If J. L. R. Os and K. G. O - I are redesignated as revenue Officers in the administrative set up and by such process they are taken out of their existing cadre or cadres and transferred to a different cadre, such action cannot be held to be without any executive authority. In the instant case, expressly it has been indicated in the relevant government order that existing conditions of service will remain unaffected. In such circumstances, prior hearing does not appear to be essential. That apart, j. L. R. Os have already been litigating where the question of threatened changes in service conditions were high lighted and the respective contentions of the parties were made known to each other. In the aforesaid circumstances, the grievance of the J. L. R. Os in the matter of change in conditions of service was made known to the State Government and on consideration of such grievance the view point of the Government was made known to the J. L. R. Os. Hence, the purpose for which a hearing is to be given to the Government employees before, any change in the conditions of service is made, has been fulfilled in all intent and purpose and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that for the absence of giving the J. L. R. Os an opportunity of being heard before implementation of the scheme in so far as they are concerned, such implementation has become illegal for which interference by the writ court is called for. We, therefore, find no reason to hold that impugned government orders including the order dated February 18, 1989 are malafide, illegal or without any authority in law. It appears to us that the Government was anxious to effect changes in the administrative set up and such anxiety and the outline of the scheme were made known to all concerned as far back as in 1983. It appears to us that the Government was anxious to effect changes in the administrative set up and such anxiety and the outline of the scheme were made known to all concerned as far back as in 1983. The learned advocate General has submitted before us that all the j. L. R. OS have not refused to take new assignment in the new set up and out of about. 2500 employees, only about 100 J. L. R. Os have refused to accept the new assignment. As the impugned orders are not illegal, and/or malafide, we do not think that there is any occasion to quash the the said orders. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment passed by this learned trial Judge. Let the J. L. R. Os being the members of the West Bengal junior Land Reforms Association who have not yet joined as Revenue Officers in the changed administrative set up join the post of Revenue Officer within a fortnight from today. As the petitioners succeeded in trial court and therefore had reasons not to accept new assignment, the entire period till fortnight from date of this judgment should be treated as on special leave with pay to those JLROs who have not joined the new assignment of Revenue Officers. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal. We reasonably expect that the State Government will keep in mind the very valuable service rendered by the J. L. R. Os in difficult transitory phase of change in the land tenure system and will give anxious consideration to amiliorate the genuine grievances of any of the j. L. R. Os so that their expertise is gainfully utilised in the pursuit of effective implementation of the state policy in the administration of land, land revenue and land reforms. Appeal allowed.