- (1.) In these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the various letters arid communications issued by respondent No 1 refusing to approve the decision of respondent No. 2 to increase their pay scales.
(2.) At Ranebennur, Dharward dt., there is an Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter refer- red to as the A.P. M.C.) constituted and functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act of 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Acty and the petitioners are working as senior market superviors of the said A.P.M.C. On 3.6.1977 the A.P.M.C. by its resolution of that date (Ex. A) decided to revise the pay scales of the petitioners from Rs'. 300-700 to 400-900. As required by the Act, the A.P.M.C. forwarded a copy of the said resolution to the Chief Marketing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the C.M.O.), respondent 1 and sought his approval for the same. By various communications and orders made from time to time, the C.M.O. has refused to accord his approval to the same, for which reason the petitioners have moved this Court for appropriate reliefs,
(3.) The petitioner claim that the A.P.M.C. is competent to revise the pay scales and pay them in accordance with the revised pay scales and the C.M.O. has no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the A.P.M.C. Alternatively they have urged that there was no justification for the CMO to withhold his approval when he had granted such approval to various other A.P.M.Cs. like Bailhongal, Haveri, Savanur and Hirekerur.;