Judgement

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. These two appeals are the aftermath of the decision of this Court in Venkata Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 3 SCR 509 : (AIR 1985 SC 724) and the order rejecting S. L. P. Nos. 4417 to 4447 of 1986. By the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-Time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984, the posts of Part Time Village Officers stood abolished with effect from the date of the commencement of the Ordinance, which was January 6, 1984. The Ordinance defined Part Time Village Officer as a person who held any of the Village Offices of Headman, Munsif, Reddy, Monagir, Peddakapu, Patel, Karnam. or Patwari or Triune Officer or holder of any such village office by whatever designation locally known. The constitutional validity of the Ordinance was questioned in several writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court. In Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (AIR 1985 SC 724) (supra) the constitutional validity of the Ordinance was upheld by this Court. At the hearing of the writ petitions, a question was mooted whether the erstwhile Village Officers could be absorbed as Village Assistants who were to replace the Village Officers. When a similar question arose in connection with the abolition of the posts of Village Officers of Tamil Nadu in Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1982) 3 SCR 628 : (AIR 1982 SC 1107), the learned Attorney General on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Government filed a memorandum assuring the Court that all erstwhile Villge Officers possessing the minimum general qualification as required under the Abolition Act and irrespective of their age would be screened by a Committee appointed by the Government and those found suitable would be appointed to the new posts without the necessity of their having to make applications or having to appear for a test. When the Andhra Pradesh writ petitions were being heard by the Supreme Court there was some correspondence between the Advocate- General and the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Advocate-General was authorised to give an assurance, if necessary on the same lines as that given by the Attorney-General in the Tamil Nadu case. An Affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh before the Court in those writ petitions and the relevant portion of the affidavit was also recorded by the Court in its order. The Court said :

"It is lastly urged that the State Government may be asked to consider the cases of those petitioners who possess the prescribed qualifications for appointment as Village Assistants. We are informed that the number of posts of Village Assistants that are going to be created would be about one-eight of the number of posts of part-time village officers which are abolished. It is also difficult in law to issue any direction in that behalf in the facts and circumstances of this case. We, however, record that in para 21 of the Counter-Affidavit filed by B. V. Janardhan Reddy, Deputy Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh it is stated thus :

"In addition, the Government is of the view that such of those village officers who possess the required qualifications as prescribed and otherwise found suitable will also be considered for appointment of Village Assistants subject to the availability of the posts."

"We trust that the State Government will give due regard to the abovesaid statement while making appointments. Statements contained in affidavits are meant to be honoured."

What is important to be noted here is that at that stage there was no prescription of any age limit and nobody even hinted at any maximum age limit in the case of these erstwhile Village Officers. On the other hand, the assurance was assumed to be as in the Tamil Nadu case that all those erstwhile village officers found eligible and suitable would be appointed irrespective of their age.

3. Subsequent to the judgment in Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1985 SC 724) (supra