V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. This Appeal arises out of the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the appointment of the 4th respondent herein as Kazi for the District of Ramanathapuram. We have heard Mr. M. Ajmalkhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. M. Alaguthevan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. K. Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

2. The appellant herein was appointed as Kazi for the entire District of Ramanathapuram. The appointment of Kazi was made by the State Government, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 2 of The Kazis Act, 1880.

3. Though Section 2 of the said Act empowers the State Government to appoint one or more Kazis for any local area, the appointment should be made after consulting the Principal Mohammedan Residents of the area. The guidelines for appointment of Kazis were framed by the Government under G.O. Ms. No. 260, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 22.7.1996. By the said Government Order, a State Level Committee was constituted for the purpose. But the guidelines were revised by G.O. Ms. No. 30 Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare (SI Department), dated 5.7.2002. As per these revised guidelines, District Level Selection Committees were constituted in each District. The Committee will be headed by the District Collector. Five qualified Ulemas and two important Muslim citizens of the concerned District, nominated by the Collector, will be the other members of the Committee. The Annexure to the Government Order prescribed the qualifications for appointment.

4. The appellant himself was appointed in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines, under G.O. Ms. No. 35, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare (SI Department), dated 19.5.2009. The appointment was for the entire District of Ramanathapuram.

5. But, all of a sudden, by G.O. Ms. No. 43 dated 28.7.2014, the Government reduced the jurisdictional area of the appellant to Paramakudi Revenue Division of Ramanathapuram District. By another order in G.O. Ms. No. 44 issued on the same date, the 4th respondent was appointed as Kazi for the Ramanathapuram Revenue Division of Ramanathapuram District.

6. Aggrieved by the said appointment, the appellant came up with a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 16854 of 2014. But, the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge on the short ground that when the power conferred upon the Government under Section 2 of the Kazis Act 1880 had been exercised in the manner prescribed by law, the same cannot be upset by this Court. Therefore, the appellant has come up with the above appeal.

7. At first blush, we are unable to find fault with the view taken by the learned Judge, since Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 confers power upon the State Government to appoint one or more Kazis for any area. Without dislodging the appellant, the Government had appointed the 4th respondent as one more Kazi for the same area and has also earmarked the jurisdiction of both of them.

8. But the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is

"(i) that when the power to appoint Kazis is conferred upon the State Government, there was no occasion for the District Collector to make a recommendation for the appointment of the 4th respondent;

(ii) that there is no indication in the impugned orders that there was consultation with the local Muslims; and

(iii) that Section 2 of the Act uses the phrase "if it thinks fit" indicating thereby that there should be an application of mind on the part of the Government."

9. In addition to the above three grounds, the learned senior counsel also brought to our notice the fact that the 4th respondent has produced a false certificate with regard to his qualifications and that therefore, his appointment is vitiated by fraud.

10. A look at the Annexure to G.O. Ms. No. 30 dated 5.7.2012 would show t