1982 Supreme(AP) 536
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GANGADHARA RAO, K.MADHAVA REDDY
K.Veerabhadraiah - Appellant
Versus
N.V.Krishna Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 12-28-82
Rule 10 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969 is constitutionally valid and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 (4) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
VILLAGE OFFICERS SERVICE RULES - RULE 10 (7) - VALIDITY - RESERVATION OF VACANCIES FOR SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES AND BACKWARD CLASSES - CONSTITUTIONALITY - G.O. MS. NO. 1377 REVENUE (U) DEPARTMENT DATED 27TH NOVEMBER 1979 - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - ISSUES RELATING TO APPOINTMENT, CESSATION OF OFFICE, TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS, AMALGAMATION OR BIFURCATION OF VILLAGES, QUALIFICATIONS, ROSTER, RESIGNATION, ETC. - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.
Fact of the Case:
The main question for consideration was the constitutional validity of Rule 10 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969. Various issues arose in the interpretation and implementation of that rule, including the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 1377 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (U) Department dated 27th November, 1979.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Rule 10 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969 is constitutionally valid and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that G.O. Ms. No. 1377 Revenue (U) Department dated 27th November 1979 is not valid and cannot over-ride the provisions of Rule 10 (7).
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 10 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969 is constitutionally valid? 2. Whether G.O. Ms. No. 1377 Revenue (U) Department dated 27th November 1979 is valid? 3. Interpretation of various provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969, including issues relating to appointment, cessation of office, temporary appointments, amalgamation or bifurcation of villages, qualifications, roster, resignation, etc.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 10 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969 is constitutionally valid and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. 2. G.O. Ms. No. 1377 Revenue (U) Department dated 27th November 1979 is not valid and cannot over-ride the provisions of Rule 10 (7).
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ appeals and writ petitions, except for Writ Appeal No. 91/1980, which was allowed in part. The Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officers to revise the rosters and fill up the vacancies in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment.
( 1 ) IN these Writ Appeals and writ Petitions the main question for our consideration is the constitutional validity of Rule 10 (7) of the Andhra pradesn (Andhra Area) Village Offices service Rules, 1969.
( 2 ) QUESTIONS arising in the interpretation and implementation of that rule were also canvassed before us. Validity of G. O. Ms. No. 1377 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, revenue (U) Department dated 27th november, 1979 is also put in issue in some writ petitions,
( 3 ) IT is common knowledge that the offices of the village Officers in our state were heriditary. With the advent of tha Constitution and the decision of the Supreme Court in Gajula Dasaratha Rama Rao Vs, State of Andhra Pradesh (1) AIR 1961 SC 564, holding that the hereditary right of the village officers is violatii/j of Article 16 (2) of the constitution of India, tha heriditary right was abolished by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by repealing the Village Heriditary Offices Act, 1895 the Proprietor/ Estates Village Servants act, 1834 and allied Regulations and notifications, and the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Vrllage Offices Servics rule-;, 1969, and the Andhra Pradesh (Telar. gana Area) village Offices Service Rules 1978 were promulgatad by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of holders of village offices. In the Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service rules, 1969 (hereinafter called the "andhra Area Rules") Rule 3 refers to classes and categories of village Officers and Village Servants. Class I relates to Village Officers, which consists of two categories C\) Headman, Munsif reddy, Monigar, Peddakapu, Patel and their assistants, and (2) Karnam, patwari and their assistants. Though the office in each category is the same, different names are given because they are called by those designations in different areas in the State. We are not concerned with Class II that is, village Servants in these writ petitions. Under Rule 5, it is the Revenue Divisional Officer that is the appointing authority in respect of categories specified in Class I of the Service. He is also the disciplinary authority of the Village Officers under Rule 52 Rule 7 refers to temporary appointments, Rule 8 relates to cessation of office of a temporary holder in certain cases. Rula 9 provides the procedure for appoint- ment in resulting vacancies due to amalgamation or bifurcation of villages. Rule 10 refers to general and otherqualifications for appointment of Village officers. Until 1977, there was no reservation for Scheduled Castes or schedu ed Tribes or Backward Classes in the Office of the Village Officers. On 23rd May, 1977, G. 0. Ms. No. 294 revenue was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh adding subrule (7} to Rule 10 of the Rules. It reads as follows:-"out of every two vacancies of the post of class-1 Village Officers specified in Rule 3 arising in a Revenue division the second vacancy shall be filled up from among the qualified candidates belonging to the Scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes,. "it was published in the Andhra Pradesh gazette dated 16th June, 1977 and it came into force from that date. By virtue of this Rule, out of every two vacancies arising in the two categories of Class I Village Officers specified in rule 3, the second vacancy is reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled tribes and backward classes. This sub-rule is issued by the Governor or andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred upon him bythe proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
( 4 ) THE validity of this sub-rule is questioned on the following grounds: It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the office of the village officer is a special post unlike other posts; it is a part-time job, the qualifications are peculiar in nature and, therefore, unlike in Government service there should be no reservation for S