ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. All these writ petitions are by the persons, who were working as contract labourers, daily wagers and seasonal workers in the Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Pandavapura, whose services it appears have come to be regularized in terms of proceedings of the administration of the factory conducted on 1-8-2011 (copy produced at Annexure-C), 14-3-2012 (copy produced at Annexure-D), 5-4-2012 (copy produced at Annexure-E), and 14-3-2013 (copy produced at Annexure-F). In these proceedings all writ petitioners had been regularised on 11-4-2012 as per order in their favour (copies produced at Annexures-J, K, L and M series). Petitioners have claimed that they were working in the factory either as casual labourers and seasonal labourers for the past 25 to 30 years and are all on the verge of their retirement and have made request to the management to regularise their services. Hence the management had regularised their services as per the orders issued on 11-4-2012 following resolutions held on the earlier occasions referred to above. 2. Petitioners are now aggrieved that their aspirations are put to jeopardy by the Government in terms of the directions issued by the State Government to the Commissioner for Cane Development Authority in Karnataka, as per its communication dated 27-12-2012 (copy produced at Annexure-P), where under the Government acting on the complaint dated 24-12-2012 given to it, by one Mohan Kumar, a person claiming to be the Farmers' Leader complaining that services of large number of employees are either regularised or appointed in the factory for ulterior purpose and for personal gains by the management; that the appointments were not either permitted or approved by the Government; that the said regularization would result in huge expenditure to the factory and therefore, requesting the Government to put a hold on these appointments and conduct a proper enquiry into regularization of appointments etc., as per Annexure-P direction the 2nd respondent-Cane Commissioner was required to immediately stay the appointment procedure, conduct an enquiry and submit a report to the Government at the earliest. It appears 2nd respondent in turn had communicated vide letter dated 3-1-2013 (copy produced at Annexure-Q) to the Management Director of the Factory to issue directions to the concerned for staying the appointment/regularization process in respect of 76 daily wagers and 110 contract labourers, who were seasonal employees at that time and who had been regularised etc. It appears 2nd respondent in turn had communicated vide letter dated 3-1-2013 (copy produced at Annexure-Q) to the Management Director of the Factory to issue directions to the concerned for staying the appointment/regularization process in respect of 76 daily wagers and 110 contract labourers, who were seasonal employees at that time and who had been regularised etc. Office order dated 4-1-2013 being displayed on the Board (copy produced at Annexure-R) and petitioners having come to know about the same, have questioned the legality of all these proceedings before this Court. 3. Appearing on behalf of petitioners it is contended by Mr. V.S. Naik, learned Counsel, that the process of appointment/regularization had been completed long back as on 11-4-2012; that there is no further process; that the petitioners were all persons languishing as temporary or daily wage workers for the past 25 to 30 years; that the orders are bona fide and more on humanitarian consideration; that there was no need for the Government to take major decision merely based on a complaint of a single individual; that the appointments having been regularised etc., should not have been put to jeopardy by the State Government, even without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is also contended that the petitioners' position cannot be put to a worse situation than what it was earlier, viz., that they were all working as seasonal contractual workers or as daily wage workers and termination of the appointment orders at this stage, will put them to street etc. and therefore, the Government directions and follow-up action by the Commissioner for Cane Development and Management of factory should all be quashed. 4. Notice had been issued to the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 are represented by Mr. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned AGA and 3rd respondent-Special Officer and the Managing Director of the Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Pandavapur, Mandya, is represented by Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath, learned Counsel for M/s. Rao Associates. 5. Statement of objections have been filed by the 3rd respondent not only to the main petition but on interim applications also. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned AGA and 3rd respondent-Special Officer and the Managing Director of the Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Pandavapur, Mandya, is represented by Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath, learned Counsel for M/s. Rao Associates. 5. Statement of objections have been filed by the 3rd respondent not only to the main petition but on interim applications also. The sum and substance of the objections raised on behalf of the respondents is that appointments and regularization of casual labourers, seasonal labourers and contractual workers has been done by an authority not competent to do so; that the Board of Management had been super ceded at the relevant point of time that the administration was temporarily in the hands of the administrative committee appointed by the Government; that the Administrative Committee was not the whole and sole authority to take decisions; that the administrative committee was only an ad hoc arrangement and therefore, could not have taken a hasty decision on the complaint by one individual or the other; that the Government noticing that grave irregularity has been committed by the then administrative committee particularly, exercising power, which was otherwise to be exercised by the Board of Management thought it proper to hold an enquiry and put on hold, the further action for regularization and therefore, no exception can be taken by the Government and the Special Officer, who is now incharge of the Management as Director is functioning since 4-12-2012, if has taken follow-up action, no exception can be taken etc. 6. Submission of Mr. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned AGA, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 is that the Government has acted bona fide and in a proper manner. 6. Submission of Mr. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned AGA, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 is that the Government has acted bona fide and in a proper manner. At some point of time certain irregularities in a matter involving financial implications of the factory that certain discretionary decisions had been taken by then Management, even when the matter had never been brought to the notice of the Government, such appointments requires the approval of the Government which is also not even placed before the Board and at any rate the Special Officer, who is placed on the Board and even assuming that then existing management was an officer of the Administrative Committee, it did not have full powers of the Board nor could have acted assuming all powers of a Special Officer in the context of appointments, as such the Government has only directed an enquiry and pending enquiry to be put on hold the recruitment process, for being satisfied about the validity of appointments and if it is found that there is something lacking, the Government is yet to take a decision and therefore, submits that no interference is warranted at this stage. 7. In this regard, Mr. Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the information that the petitioners have as of now is that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, Mandya District has been appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the complaint lodged by one Mohan Kumar and to submit a report on this aspect to the Government. However, learned Counsel submits that in the meanwhile the petitioners' interest should not be put to jeopardy and even if the present appointment orders are not given effect to or even if they are put on hold, petitioners' position cannot be worse than what it was earlier and therefore, while the present regularisation/appointment orders can be made, subject to the result of the enquiry and a decision to be taken by the Government on the merits of the matter and as such the petitioners' interest should be protected in the interregnum in respect of the appointment orders at Annexures-J, K, L and M series all dated 11-4-2012. 8. The enquiry as of now is said to be in progress. The appointment orders if are otherwise also required to be protected by Government. 8. The enquiry as of now is said to be in progress. The appointment orders if are otherwise also required to be protected by Government. It should be submitted to the Government for approval and even without approval by the Board also they cannot be said to be final. If the State Government has the power to approve or disapprove, it can be only said to be decision of the State Government which is also required to take bona fide decision and based on the merits of the matter. In the wake of the appointment of an Enquiry Officer to look into the complaint and possible irregularity in the matter of appointment for regularization depending on the out come of the report, the Government has to take a decision based on the merits of the matter. 9. In the circumstances, I find that there is no need for quashing the communications and the follow-up action as the decision only led to hold an enquiry into the complaint of the said Mohan Kumar and the result is awaited. It is however, made clear that the Government at any rate is bound to give an opportunity to the petitioners before taking a decision to approve or otherwise and depending on the outcome of the enquiry. It is however, made clear that the position of the petitioners cannot be made worse than what it was earlier and pending further decision even if the petitioners are relieved as claimed by the respondent or even if they are put on hold not to disturb them from holding the regular post or permanent post, they cannot be denied the benefits to them as was earlier in respect of seasonal employees, who were all on the role of the 3rd respondent-factory. None of the petitioners' position can be made worse than what it was prior to appointment order dated 11-4-2012 as per Annexures-J, K, L and M series. None of the petitioners' position can be made worse than what it was prior to appointment order dated 11-4-2012 as per Annexures-J, K, L and M series. With such observations these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the State Government to take a decision in the matter and on merits and at that stage to afford an opportunity to the petitioners through representations, if any, adverse orders are proposed to be passed, as it is only in the fitness of things and in consonance with the principles of natural justice; that the affected persons should be given a hearing as the orders have already been issued with approval or without approval of the Government and decision can be exercised by the Government in respect of legal appointments.