Duty of the officer in re-considering the matter remanded.

1. The matter relates to the appointment of the permanent Thalayari of Sorathur Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, North Arcot District. The contestants were the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Earlier there was an order of remand by the Revisional Authority, the 1st respondent herein, on 8.10.1977 and in view of the controversy raised by Mr.V.M.Lenin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the question of satisfaction of the age qualification as laid down by rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Services Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), the relevant portion of the order of remand requires extraction as follows:

“A careful scrutiny of the reports shows that neither the Tahsildar nor the Revenue Divisional Officer has ascertained the date of birth of both the revision petitioner and the respondent. Only medical certificates from the Medical Officer, Govt. Primary Health Centre, Vettavalam has been obtained both in respect of the revision petitioner and the respondent. In respect of the revision petitioner Thiru S.Murugesan, the Medical Officer has stated on 7.2.76 that his age according to his own statement was about 27 years and by appearance he was aged about 27 years. Similarly in respect of the respondent Thiru P.Kannu, the Medical Officer has stated on 27.7.75 that his age according to his own statement was 37 years and by appearance he was aged about 37 years. The records show that the revision petitioner had furnished a certificate obtained from the school in which he studied to the effect that he has studied upto V Std. But the certificate is not available in the disposal files of both the Taluk and Divisional Officer. For the purpose of appointment, the date of birth is very important as according to rule (8) no person shall be eligible for appointment unless he has attained the age of 21 years and has not attained the age of 40 years on the date on which the vacancy had arisen permanently. In this case, the vacancy arose permanently on 10.1.74 when Thiru Subbarayan, permanent Thalayari of the village was relieved from the post on submitting resignation. The records revealed that no efforts had been taken to ascertain the age of the revision petitioner and the respondent as on 10.1.74, the date when the permanent vacancy arose. The date of birth is very important to decide whether the individual is eligible for the post. Further under Family Benefit Scheme the date of birth is essentially required to determine the payment of Family Benefit Fund to the legal heirs. The date of birth of the revision petitioner and the respondent should have been correctly ascertained or fixed with reference to Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Officer following the orders of the Government in the matter. This has not been done in this case. The age of the revision petitioner and the respondent as stated by them has been taken into consideration in this case.

This is a material irregularity which has vitiated the entire proceedings.

(iii) In the circumstances the orders of the Tahsildar, D.Dis.10887/74, dated 31.3.1975 appointing the respondent Thiru P.Kannu as the permanent basic Thalayari of Sorathur Group village and the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, T.V.Malai P.Dis.7002/Z5, dt. 14.3.76 rejecting the appeal of the revision petitioner are set aside and the case is remanded back to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and disposal of the application already received by him for the purpose with reference to the notice published on 31.1.1975.”

Pursuant to the above order of remand, the matter was taken up by the concerned Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai and he very significantly and, in my view, very erroneously by his order dated 18.6.1979, without adverting to the scope of the order of remand and the need to resolve the controversy over the correct ages of the parties, as per the directives in the order of remand, appointed the second respondent to the post. The petitioner appealed to the Revenue Divisio