Judgment

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :- In the above writ petitions filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioners have questioned. the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-Time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) promulgated by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on January 6,1984 in exercise of his powers under Art. 213 of the Constitution by which the posts of part-time Village Officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh came to be abolished and provision was made for the appointment of Village Assistants. Some of the petitions which are disposed of by this judgment had been filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution for similar reliefs. They were withdrawn to this Court under Art. 139A of the Constitution for hearing them along with the petitions filed under Art. 32.

2. Section 2(d) of the Ordinance defined the expression part-time village officer as a person who held any of the village offices of headman, munsiff, reddy, monigar, peddakapu, patel, Karnam or patwari or triune officer or holder of any such village office by whatever designation it may be locally known including their assistants appointed under (i) the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969, (ii) the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1978 or (iii) any other law. The petitioners were the holders of these posts immediately prior to the date of the promulgation of the Ordinance.

3. It is necessary to set out at this stage a brief history of the posts held by the petitioners. The State of Andhra Pradesh was constituted under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 consisting of two areas known as the Andhra Area and the Telangana Area. There were different laws governing the village administration in the two areas. The village establishment in the Andhra Area which previously formed part of the State of Madras consisted of headmen and karnams who were village officers and talyaris, vettis and neergantis who were village servants. Their appointment and conditions of service were governed by the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 (Madras Act No. III of 1895). They were originally hereditary offices. In Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1961) 2 SCR 931, decided on December 6, 1960 this Court held that S. 6 (1) of the said Act which provided for appointment of village officers and servants on the hereditary basis was hit by Art. 16(2) of the Constitution and was, therefore, void. In the Telangana Area, the village establishment consisted of the posts of patwaris, mali patels and police patels who were village officers and sethsindhis and neeradis who were village servants. Their duties and responsibilities were laid down byDastur-ul-Amal 1293 Hijri (Fasli 1285) and Dastur-e-Dehi. These posts were also hereditary in character. They were also known as watans. After the decision of this Court referred to above, the Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed a Committee called the Village Officers Enquiry Committee under G.O.Ms. No. 1042, Revenue (H) dated June 16,1961 to propose, among others a scheme for the village establishment of the entire State of Andhra Pradesh under the chairmanship of K. M. Unnithan, I.C.S. since the State Government was of the view that the then existing system of part-time officers working at the village level was not conducive to the interests of public administration. The said Committee submitted its report in 1961. It found that taking an overall view of the nature and quantum of work of the village officers in the two areas of the State there was not enough work for all village officers and that it was necessary to reorganise the village establishment by appintment of full time officers with larger volume of work. The Committee recommended that steps should be taken to reduce the number of posts by merger of functions and increasing the a