V N CHOWDIAH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions raise the same or similar question and are therefore heard and disposed of by this common judgment. For tile purpose of deciding the question arising in these cases it would be convenient to state the facts in one case and for that purpose the facts in Writ Petition No.911 of 1972 are stated.

(2.) Petitioner in WP.911 of 1972 was a barawardar Shanbhogue of certain villages and on the abolition of the hereditary village offices by the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, the hereditary right was extinguished. The petitioner however continued to work as a Village Accountant. The Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Village Accountants (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1961 were brought into torce on the 1st of December 1961. The petitioner and other Village Accountants continued to work as Village Accountants. Thereafter the Mysore Land Revenue Act of 1964 was brought into force with effect from 1-4-1964. Under S.16(2) of the said Act Village Accountants who were discharging the duties of the post were continued until appointments were made under S.16(1) of the Act, The petitioner therefore continued to work as a Village Accountant, Even though selections were made on the earlier two occasions the services of the petitioner were not dispensed with. However the 1961 Rules were repealed by the Rules made on the 25th of March 1970 known as the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Village Accountants (Recruitment) Rules 1970. Thereafter action was taken to make the selections and the petitioner's services are terminated. It is at this stage petitioner has presented the writ petition for quashing the orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahsildar and for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to continue the petitioner in service as Village Accountant till he attains the age of superannuation. As already stated, the facts in the other cases are also the same and same reliefs have been prayed for by the other petitioners also.

(3.) The only contention raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions is that under Rule 10 of the 1961 Rules they were entitled as of right for continuance and therefore they were entitled to continue in service until they reach the age of superannuation. Therefore, the termination of their services to make room for the persons appointed as a result of the selections made in the year 1971 was impermissible.