A writ petition challenging an order of compulsory retirement from service is purely personal to the petitioner and does not survive to his legal representatives upon his death.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. by which he dismissed W. P. No. 403 of 1962 for the issue of a Writ of certiorari quashing G. O, MS. No. 1097, Education Department, Government of Andhra pradesh, dated 2oth April, 1961 and G. O. Ms. No. 3382, Education Department, government of Andhra Pradesh, dated ist November, 1961.

( 2 ) THE appellant filed the writ in the following circumstances: When he was serving as the Principal, Government Training College, Nellore, in 1956, certain allegations of corruption and mal-practices were made against him. The then Deputy Director of Public Instruction (Personnel) conducted a preliminary enquiry into the allegations and submitted his report to the Government. As the Government saw a prima facie case of corruption, etc. , it directed an enquiry by the Tribunal for disciplinary Proceedings. Finding him guilty of seme of the charges, the Tribunal made its recommendations. The Government considered the report of the Tribunal for disciplinary Proceedings and its recommendation, consulted the Departmental head, the Director of Public Instruction and came to a provisional conclusion that the Officer should be compulsorily retired from service with such pensionary benefits as might accrue to him. The Officer was given an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed punishment, and by its order G. O. Ms. 1097, Education department, dated aoth April, 1961, the Government directed his compulsory retirement from service.

( 3 ) AGAINST the said Order, the petitioner-appellant preferred an appeal as provided under the Rules which was rejected by G. O. Ms. 3382, Education Department, dated 1st November, 1961. The Writ Petition was filed on 18th April, 1962 seeking the removal of the said orders on certiorari. Ekbote, J. , who heard the writ petition, saw no case for interference and dismissed the writ petition on 19th March, 1964. The present appeal is filed on 29th June, 1964 against the said order dismissing the writ petition. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died on 7th April, 1966 and his legal representatives, who were brought on record by the orders of the Deputy registrar, purport to continue the appeal.

( 4 ) A preliminary objection is raised by the learned Government Pleader that the cause of action did not survive and the writ appeal abated. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the writ petitioner challenged the orders of the government compulsorily retiring him from service, which related to a purely personal and individual right of his, and that on his death the cause of action did not survive, but died with him. As this is a vital matter touching the maintainability of the appeal, it is necessary that we decide this question.

( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader cited in his support a recent decision of the madras High Court in U. Vridachalam and others v. The State of Madras represented by secretary to Government Home Department, Madras, 1965 2 MLJ 302 : AIR 1966 Mad. 260. The facts in that case present a similarity and we consider that the decision is of some relevancy. The petitioner in that case was a Police Head Constable against whom certain charges were fiamed. A departmental enquiry against him resulted in the order of dismissal from service. He exhausted his remedies otherwise provided and ultimately sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari on certain grounds. After filing the writ petition, he died, and his legal representatives were brought on record. A preliminary question arose, as now, whether the writ proceedings were maintainable in the changed circumstances caused by the death of the writ petitioner. The learned Judge held that the relief sought was purely personal to the delinquent officer and that such personal right, which involved the continuance in service or otherwise of a person would not survive to the legal representatives. The learned Judge further observed that the State w