ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J: The petitioners are before this Court praying that the order dated 6.6.2006 passed by the first respondent which is impugned at Annexure-G to the petition be quashed and all the consequential benefits be granted to them. 2. The brief acts on which the petitioners have approached this Court is that the petitioners are all employees of the first respondent Command Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the CADA) who were drawing the pay scale applicable to the post of Agricultural Assistants from the year 31.3.1998. By the impugned order, the said benefit has been removed in the guise of downgrading them to group 'D' and calling them as CADA Assistants. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they were initially working as daily wagers. By the order dated 2.4.1992, the CADA took a decision to regularise the services of 247 daily wage workers. As such, the services of the petitioners also came to be regularised. It is the contention of the petitioners that the regularisation was to the post of Agricultural Assistants and by order dated 31.3.1998, the pay scale of Rs. 1130-2100 was extended to the petitioners. Subsequently, when they were receiving the said pay scale, by the impugned order dated 6.6.2006, the CADA by referring to certain directions issued by the State Government have redesignated the petitioners as 'D' Group employees as against the 'C' Group status which they had enjoyed earlier. Apart from contending that the Government does not have such power to direct the CADA, it is also the contention of the petitioners that by redesignating them as 'D' Group employees, the respondents have sought to reduce the pay scale which has been done clandestinely by the impugned order in the guise of redesign at ion, more so without even notifying the petitioners and complying with the principles of natural justice. In this regard, the representation made by them was also not considered by the respondents. 4. The respondents on being notified have appeared and filed their objection statement. In this regard, the representation made by them was also not considered by the respondents. 4. The respondents on being notified have appeared and filed their objection statement. By the contentions urged in the objection statement, they not only seek to justify the action of the CADA issuing such an order based on the directions of the Government, but would also contend that the petitioners were regularised at the first instance in the year 1992 in the agricultural wing and not as agricultural assistants, and as such they were working as CADA Assistants in the said agricultural wing. It is further contended by them that the qualifications which were required to hold the post of agricultural assistants is not fulfilled by petitioners No.27 and 28. Stating so, the respondents seek to justify their action. 5. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would contend that the action of the CADA in issuing the impugned order dated 6.6.2006 cannot be sustained since the said order refers to the purported directions by Government which are indicated at SI.No.3 in the reference portion of the order. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the Karnataka Command Areas Development Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and the rules framed thereunder would not empower the Government to do so. Firstly, under the Act, the only power which is available to the State Government is under Section 48 and such power can be exercised only with regard to policy matters. With regard to regulation of the service conditions of the employees of the CADA, under the rules, more particularly vide Rule 5 which is applicable to the instant case, it is specific with regard to scales of pay and other conditions of service. As such when the rules itself contemplates the procedure to be followed, the directions of the Government cannot nullify the said rule or such correspondence cannot be issued to overcome the same. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the other High Courts to contend that while considering an analogous provision contained under the Electricity Act, It has been categorically held that such power is available only insofar as the policy decisions and not with regard to regulation of the service conditions. Learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the requirement contemplated under the CADA (Cadre and Recruitment) 1987 which was notified on 12.3.1996 referred to by the respondents cannot be made applicable retrospectively to the petitioners since the petitioners were regularised into service in the year 1992 though the pay scale was fixed in the year 1998 and the notification itself makes It clear that it would come into force on the date of publication. 6. Per contra, Sri M.Kumar, learned Government Advocate would contend that though the impugned order at Annexure-G refers to the directions from the Government, even in the absence of such communication, it would be open for the CADA to pass necessary orders and therefore in that regard no fault could be found with the impugned order dated 6.6.2006. In that view of the matter, even assuming that there were no directions by the Government, since it would be open far the CADA, the only lacuna that could be noticed in the impugned order is that no prior notices had been issued to the petitioners and if such leave is granted to CADA, the same could be rectified in any event and as such the order could be held to be bad only to that extent and not otherwise. It is further contended that even though the petitioners claim that they have been regularised into service in the year 1992 that was only as CADA Assistants in the agricultural wing and not agricultural assistants. Insofar as the grant of pay scale and the status of group-C employees, it was made in the year 1998 as per Annexure-D to the petition, and as such the very classification is contrary to the Rules notified on 12.3.1996. 7. In the light of the contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate, a perusal of Annexure-G would indicate that though the CADA has issued the said order with regard to the change of status of the petitioners frame Group C to Group D, the only reason assigned in the said order is that the same has been passed in view of the communications dated 7.10.2004,19.10.2005, 4.3.2006 and 17.5.2006 which are referred to at Sl.No.3 in the reference portion of the said communication. Therefore at the outset, what is required to be considered by this Court is as to whether the CADA would be justified in passing such an order in such event. In this regard, the reference to Section 48 of the Act is necessary. The provision contained therein reads as hereunder: "48. Directions by the State Government.-In the discharge of its functions, every authority shall be guided by such directions and instructions as may be given to it by the State Government." 8. The said provision indicates that in the discharge of its function, ~very authority shall be guided by the directions of the State Government. The scope of the Section need not be adverted to in detail by me since I have the benefit of interpretation of an analogous provision which has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Verma and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1992 Suppl (2) SCC 343); by the Full Bench of Kerala High Court and in the case of A. M.Mani Vs. Kerala State Electricity (AIR 1968 Kerala 76); by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of A.P.S.E.B. VS. N.Ramachandra Rao ( AIR 1969 AP 328 ) cited by the learned Senior Counsel in this regard. In fact the latter two judgments have been referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Verma noticed supra. The provision which came up for consideration is Section 78-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 in the background of the provision relating to appointment of staff contained in Section 15 therein. Section 78-A of that Act is similarly worded as that of Section 48 of the instant Act. It has been held that such power is only with regard to policy decision and the directions regarding appointment 'is not a policy decision. This aspect of the limited power of the Government is considered and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Manoharan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 641 . This aspect of the limited power of the Government is considered and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Manoharan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 641 . As such I am of the considered 'view that the State Government can exercise its power under Section 48 of the CADA Act, 1980 only when questions of policy are involved and not to direct the CADA to act in a particular manner with regard to service conditions of its employees as otherwise it would amount to encroachment of the powers of CADA. Therefore to the said extent, the State Government could not have issued any directions or an indication to the CADA with regard to the alteration of the service conditions of the petitioners herein t-o reclassify them as 'D' group employees as against 'c' group status which was enjoyed by them from 1998. This is so, since any decision taken by a statutory authority on the suggestion of a person who has no statutory role would be ultra vires as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bahadursinh Lakhubai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Others, (2004) ,2 sec 65) relied on by the learned Senior Counsel. In this regard it is also necessary to refer to Rule 5, more particularly, Sub-Rule (2) of the Rules 1980 framed under the Act. The reference to the said rule would indicate that the scales of pay and other conditions of the service of the holders of the post created by the authority under sub-section (3) of Section 11 shall be such as applicable to similar Officers and employees of the State Civil Service. Hence, if the said Rule is kept in view and if the petitioners establish that they were working as agricultural assistants in CADA, they would be entitled to the pay scale as is applicable to the agricultural assistants who are working in the State Government 9. Before considering the said rule, in the background of the regularisation of the services of the petitioners herein and since they are working in CADA, it would have to be stated that the order at Annexure dated 6.6.2006 passed on the basis of the directions said to have been issued by the Government cannot be sustained. Before considering the said rule, in the background of the regularisation of the services of the petitioners herein and since they are working in CADA, it would have to be stated that the order at Annexure dated 6.6.2006 passed on the basis of the directions said to have been issued by the Government cannot be sustained. The order dated 2.4.1992 which is at Annexure-A to the petition would indicate the background under which the petitioners have been regularised into service. Though the operative portion of the order would indicate that 247 daily wage workers have been regularised in the pay scale of 750-15--900-20-1040 in the divisions indicated in the said order, the preamble to the said order would indicate that 424 posts of agricultural assistants have been sanctioned and against the same only 10% were working. This is one of the aspects which would indicate that the regularisation though made as CADA assistants in the agricultural wing was with a view to see that the posts of agricultural assistants are also filled up on such regularisation. Pursuant thereto, the order dated 31.3.1998 which is at Annexure-D has been passed whereunder the persons who were regularised as CADA Assistants have been assigned the status of agricultural assistants with the pay scale attached to it. Hence, such persons including the petitioners have been working as agricultural assistants with the pay scale of 1130-2100 ever since 31.3.1998. Though the order dated 6.6.2006 which is impugned in this petition would indicate that the Group 'C' employees are reclassified as group 'D' employees, the resultant effect is that the pay scale attached to the group 'C' would be denied to the petitioners and the scale of group 'D' would be given to them which also cannot be sustained since the right which vested in the petitioners has been altered without due process of law much less by complying the principles of natural justice. No doubt, both in the objection statement and also in the contentions put forth by the learned Government Advocate, it is stated that the qualifications which were required for the post of agricultural assistants is not fulfilled by the petitioners No.27 and 28. No doubt, both in the objection statement and also in the contentions put forth by the learned Government Advocate, it is stated that the qualifications which were required for the post of agricultural assistants is not fulfilled by the petitioners No.27 and 28. This aspect of the matter is not indicated in the order impugned and as such the respondents having provided the status to the petitioners as agricultural assistants in the year 1998 and they having worked in that post for nearly a decade, cannot justify the same in their objection statement when the order does not indicate that the status has been denied to them due to this reason. On this aspect the legal position that what is not contained in the order impugned cannot be justified thereafter by filing affidavit, is no more res-integra in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ) which has been referred to by the learned Senior Counsel. 10. Hence, all of the above said reasons, the order dated 6.6.2006 which is impugned in this petition cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. The consequential benefits if any shall also be considered. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.