IMPORTANT POINT
The validity of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act having been upheld by the Supreme Court, no appointment on hereditary basis could be made, therefore, no order for regularisation of services could be passed for those appointed on the posts of gramasahayaks.

ORDER

In the State of Karnataka there existed several hereditary village offices, namely, Patel, Patwari and Gramsahayaks prior to 1961. In the year 1961, the Karnataka Legislature passed an Act known as Karnataka Village Officer s Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act ) in terms whereof all the hereditary offices at village level were abolished. However, the holders of such offices were allowed to continue on ad-hoc basis on compassionate ground. Subsequently a circular was issued providing for compassionate appointment of children of Gramsahayaks who hold earlier hereditary offices on November 1, 1991 and died in harness.

2. It appears that the respondents herein were appointed as Gram Sahayaks in pursuance of the Government Order permitting the hereditary offices to continue on ad-hoc basis. It is not disputed that respondents were appointed as Sahayak Lekhpal between 1979 to 1983. Alleged on the ground that what were paid to them as salary was very meagre; they filed an original application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore praying therein to pay unto them salary which was being paid to other Group D employees and further to regularise their services as Group D employees with all consequential benefits. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by order dated December 5, 1996 partly allowed the said petition directing the State of Karnataka, the appellant herein, to pay a sum of Rs. 900 per month till the appellant came out with proper scheme laying down the conditions of service of the Gramsahayaks. It is against the said judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before us by means of this special leave petition.

3. Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that since the respondents herein were appointed being the children of holders of hereditary office on ad hoc basis, the Tribunal committed an error in directing the appellant to frame recruitment rules for them. We find substance in the argument.

4. In Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [1961 (2) SCR 931], the abolition of the Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895 was challenged as being void insofar as it infringes the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court was of the view that if there is a custom which has been recognised by law as regard any hereditary village office, the same must yield to a fundamental right contained in Part III of the Constitution of India. It was also found that the hereditary village office under the State and Article 16 in turn applies and therefore any appointment pursuant to such custom could be ultra vires. The validity of the said Act was, thus, upheld.

5. In B.R. Shankaranayana & Ors. vs. State of Mysore [AIR 1966 SC 1571], the validity of Mysore Village Office Abolition Act, 1961 came to be questioned wherein this Court held that in view of the declaration of law, there can be no hereditary village office in the State of Karnataka and no such appointment could be made.

6. The appointment of respondents herein has its own history. The Gramsahayaks are in the lowest in the hereditary office which was abolished in the year 1961. However, the State taking a compassionate view permitted the hereditary office holders to continue in the post on ad hoc basis without any hereditary rights. It appears that the aforesaid decision was taken in view of the administrative convenience and administrative exigencies. The appointees were adjusted against the temporarily created posts. The terms and conditions and method of recruitment was provided by the Government order which runs as under :

"1. Method of recruitment : The Tahsildar of a Revenue Taluk, subject to general orders of the District may appoint a Gramasahayaka on a temporary basis for a period not exceeding five years from among persons who were traditionally discharging the duties of the inferior village officers, who have not attain