N.S. SINGH, J.— Heard Mr. P.P. Das, learned counsel, on behalf of Mr. N.S. Deka, appearing for the petitioners, 2 in number, and Mr. A.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the ASCARD Bank Ltd. respondents. 2. The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows: Petitioner No. 1, Md Matiur Rahman, was initially appointed as peon under the Respondent-Department by virtue of a related order dated 10.5.1993 on temporary basis and, thereafter, he was posted as a security personnel under a related order dated 7.12.1993 issued by the authority concerned and he was transferred and posted at Nalbari Branch of ASCARD Bank Ltd., as supervisor in-charge. Likewise, petitioner No. 2, Md. Riazuddin Ahmed, was initially appointed as a security personnel for a period of 4 months and, thereafter, his services were extended from time to time as seen in document marked Annexures-'E' to T. It is also the case of the petitioners that without any justification, the respondent-authority degraded the petitioners from the posts of security personnel to the posts of Sub-staff under Grade-IV category by virtue of the impugned order dated 31.10.1997 issued by the Chief Executive Director of the respondent Department as seen in document marked An-annexure-'K' to the writ petition. 3. Supporting the case of the petitioners, Mr. P.P. Das, learned counsel, contended that the impugned order of degradation dated 31.10.1997 is violative of the principle of natural justice as no prior notice was given to these writ petitioners and no reasonable opportunity of being heard was ever afforded to them before issuing the impugned order of degradation, and on this count alone the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. Mr. A.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of degradation. 5. Now this court is to see and examine as to whether the petitioners have enforceable legal right in the instant case or not? 6. A bare perusal of the available materials on record shows that the appointments of these petitioners were of purely temporary nature and may be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof. However, the respondent-authority degraded the writ petitioners from the posts of security personnel to the posts of Sub-staff under Grade-IV category and even the petitioner, Md. 6. A bare perusal of the available materials on record shows that the appointments of these petitioners were of purely temporary nature and may be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof. However, the respondent-authority degraded the writ petitioners from the posts of security personnel to the posts of Sub-staff under Grade-IV category and even the petitioner, Md. Matiur Rahman was allowed 3 increments with retrospective effect in Grade-IV scale which he already earned in Grade-Ill scale in terms of the impugned order dated 31.10.1997. It is also revealed that the impugned order of degradation was issued by the authority concerned as both the petitioners were found to be under-matriculate in qualification, and they were neither ex-policemen nor they underwent any security training or Home Guard or Civil Defence personnel. In other words, they were untrained persons. As the authority concerned found these petitioners not eligible for the posts of security personnel in terms of the related Service Rules they have been degraded to the posts of Sub-staff under Grade-IV category, and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of degradation dated 31.10.1997. 7. Law is well-settled on this issue. A reference in this regard can be made to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of M.P. vs. Shyama Pardhi, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2219 , wherein the Apex Court dealt with the matter/issue pertaining to appointment of certain candidates not possessing requisite qualifications who were wrongly selected for appointment by way of initial selection to undergo training. In that case, admittedly, respondents-candidates/appointees had not possessed requisite qualifications and, accordingly, their appointment orders were cancelled, and on motion of those candidates, the Tribunal set aside the said order of cancellation with a direction to the authority for reinstatement of those candidates with consequential benefits on the ground that the order of cancellation of their appointment was issued without giving any opportunity of being heard and, as such, the same was violative of the principle of natural justice. However, the Apex Court held that the question of violation of the principle of natural justice did not arise in such a case. However, the Apex Court held that the question of violation of the principle of natural justice did not arise in such a case. The relevant observation of the Apex Court in the case of State of MP vs. Shyama Pardhi (supra) finds its place at para 5 thereof which is quoted here-in below: "It is now an admitted fact across the Bar that the respondents had not possessed the pre-requisite qualification, namely, 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as subjects. The Rules specifically provide that qualification as a condition for appointment to the post of ANM. Since prescribed qualifications had not been satisfied, the initial selection to undergo training is per se illegal. Later appointments thereof are in violation of the statutory rules. The Tribunal, therefore, was not right hi directing the reinstatement of respondents. The question of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise. The ratio of Shrawan Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 309 , strongly relied on, has no application to the facts of tin's case. That was a case where appellants possessed initial qualifications but they did not undergo the training. Since the appointment was set aside on the ground of want of training, this court interfered with, directed the Government to reinstate them into service and further directed them to send the appellants therein for training." 8. In the instant case, the writ petitioners were found to be under-matriculate in qualification, and had not possessed the requisite qualification for their appointment to the posts of security personnel under the Respondent-Department. However, the respondent-authority had not terminated their services despite the existence of terms and conditions that their appointments were purely temporary and maybe terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof, but degraded them to the posts of Sub-staff under Grade-IV category under the impugned order dated 31.10.1997. In view of these facts-situation, I am of the view that the question of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise in the instant case. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, discussion and observations, I am of the view that the petitioners could not make out a case to justify interference with the impugned order of degradation dated 31.10.1997. 10. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merit, and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.