A familial connection does not confer entitlement for appointment as kazi without a statutory basis, especially following the repeal of the governing Act.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

The brother of the petitioner was appointed as a kazi under the provisions of Section 2 of the Kazi’s Act , 1880 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). His term was terminated. That led to filing of writ petition by the brother of petitioner and a direction was issued to the State to consider his request. In the meanwhile, the brother of petitioner died in the year 2014. On the ground that petitioner accompanied his deceased brother while he was discharging his duties as a kazi and in fact his brother is to delegate some of the works to the petitioner and the petitioner is very familiar with the work of kazi and he is a religious and a prominent person amongst Muslim community in his area and that the son and wife of his deceased brother have no objection for the petitioner to be appointed as a kazi, the petitioner made a request to the respondents to appoint him as a kazi. However, he has not been so appointed. Aggrieved by the same and also aggrieved by the appointment of respondent Nos.6 to 11 as kazis, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the respondent No.2 under Annexure-A1 vide Govt.Order No.MWD 90 WES 2016 Bangalore dated 28.03.2018 in the interest of justice and equity.

b) That this Honourable Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Khazi of Afzalpur Taluka by issuing the writ of mandamus based on the application filed by the petitioner dated 23.02.2018 Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity.

c) To pass any orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit.”

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that Kazi’s Act , 1880 has been since repealed and no new person can be appointed as kazi. However, he submits that due to certain orders passed by this Court in writ petitions filed by private persons and also taking into consideration the saving clause in the enactment which repealed the Kazi Act, the kazis already appointed to act as a kazi have not been terminated.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner was never appointed as a kazi and the post of kazi is not a hereditary right. Just because brother of the petitioner was a kazi, petitioner does not get a right to be appointed as a kazi.

4. As the petitioner is not having any right to be appointed as a kazi under the provisions of the Kazi’s Act , 1880 which is already repealed, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.