Rule 75 of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969 is not retrospective in operation and, therefore, the Government did not have the jurisdiction to revise the order of the Board of Revenue dated 4-3-1969.

( 1 ) MR. Jagannadha Rao, appearing for the appellant canvassed the correctness of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Gopal Rao Ekbote, J and Sriramulu, J. that Rule 75 of the A. R (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules 1969 has no retrospective operation. The learned counsel seeks to point out that the learned Judges expressed that view without regard to the earlier ordinance (Ordinance No. 1 of 1969) and Act. No XVI of 1969 which specifically provided that any legal remedy or proceeding in respect of any right privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred in regard to matters relating to appointment, conditions of service and dismissal or removal under the repealed Acts shall be continued or enforced subject to such rules as may be made under the proviso to art. 309 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) IT does not appear that the Ordinance and the Act (Act XVI of 1969) which replaced it were brought to the notice of the learned judges by the counsel who appeared before them. Mr. Jagannadha Rao invited our attention to adjudgment rendered by one of us where the effect of the Ordinance (Ordinance No- I of 1969) and Rule 75 was considered. The view expressed by one of us there was that. "the intendment of the Legislature is thus clear that any appointment made before the Ordinance and after the constitution should come within the purview of the rules to be made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. " (Vide Judgment in W. P. 5753/70 dt. 24-9-1971. of this court ). "

( 3 ) IN that it was held that Rule 75 of the A. P. (Andhra Area) village Offices Service Rules, 1969 is retrospective in operation. Mr. P. M. Gopal Kao in. addition to placing reliance on the view expressed by the Division Bench (VV. A. No. 390 of 1971 dt. 6-3-1972j sought support from the view expressed by Parthasarathi J,, since the Ordinance and the Act to which reference was made by one of us in W, P. No. 5753/70 were not brought to the notice of the learned Judges in W. A. No. 390/71 and we are also not in agreement with the view expressed by them, we are constrained to refer the question involved viz,, the restrospective applicability or otherwise of Rule 5 of the A. P, (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service rules 1969, to a Full Bench ; the papers may therefore be placed before the Hon ble the chief justice for necessary orders as to posting, this Writ Appeal came on for final hearing before the full bench in pursuance of the said order of reference.

( 4 ) THE post of Village Karnam and Munsif fell vacant in the village Modepalli because the permanent incumbent resigned his office in 1966. The Tahsildar, Ongole admitted applications to fill the vacancy. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent applied. The Deputy tahsildar, Addanki recommended the petitioner s name. The Tahsildar in his turn endorsed the recommendation. The Revenue Divisional officer, Ongole by his order dated 30-3-1967 appointed the petitioner on permanent basis.

( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent preferred appeal to the Collector, Guntur, the appeal was dismissed on 31-12-1967. He, however, directed the appointment of the petitioner to be treated as temporary, the 2nd respondent therefore preferred a second appeal to the board of Revenue, The Board dismissed the appeal on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal.

( 6 ) THE 2nd respondent preferred a Rivision Petition against the said order of the Board of Revenue to the Government on 12-2-1970. By an order made in G. O, Ms. No. 862 dated 1-9-1971, the government allowed the revision petition and set aside the petitioner s appointment. It is to challenge the validity of the Government s order that the writ petition out of which this appeal arises was filed. The principal contention raised by the petitioner was that Rule 75 of the village Offices Service Rules, under which the Government claims to have exercised revisional jurisdiction, is not retrospective