KUNHAVULLA HAJI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed temporarily as the Adhikari of Kuppadithara Village in South Wynad Taluk.The Revenue Divisional Officer at Tellicherry invited applications from intending candidates,for appointment as the permanent Adhikari of that Village,when,the petitioner,respondents 4 to 6,and two others made applications.The petitioner,respondents 4 and 6 and another,appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer,who appointed the fourth respondent by Ext.P.3 order.The petitioner and the sixth respondent appealed against Ext.P.5 to the District Collector,who set aside the appointment observing,that two brothers of respondents 4 and 5 "are Adhikaries of two adjoining villages,and that his(fourth respondent's)appointment will create the curious situation of three brothers holding posts of Adhikaries in three adjacent amsoms.Such a situation is certainly undesirable as it is most likely to interfere with the administration " ;.In the result,he remanded the case to the Revenue Divisional Officer "for fresh enquiry and disposal according to rules and standing orders " ;,

(2.) THE Revenue Divisional Officer then appointed the petitioner by Ext.P.2 order,negativing the claim of the fourth respondent in these terms: "The appointment of Sri.N.T.Narayanan Nair(the fourth respondent)was set aside by the Collector,as it was considered not desirable to have members of the same family as Adhikaries of adjoining amsoms." Respondents 4 to 6 appealed against this to the Collector,who confirmed it by Ext.P.3,and on a motion to revise Ext.P.3 the Board of Revenue set aside Exts,P.2 and P.3 by Ext.P.4,and remanded the case once again to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fresh disposal.This petition is for quashing Ext.P.4,on three grounds which were pressed before me,first,that the fourth respondent not having sought to revise Ext.P.1 became disentitled to prefer an appeal to the Collector against Ext.P.2,and a petition to the Board of Revenue to revise Ext.P.3,secondly,that having failed to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer initially and to prefer an appeal against Ext.P.5,the first respondent was not entitled to take part in the proceedings after remand or to prefer an appeal against Ext.P.2,and thirdly,that Ext.P.4 is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record,in that,the Board of Revenue "wrongly thought,that the Revenue Divisional Officer had not adduced reasons,as he was bound to do,by the Standing Orders,to 'overlook 'the claims of respondents 4 and 5 on the ground of their relationship to the Adhikaries of the adjacent villages.

(3.) IN the present case,what the Collector had stated in Ext.P.1 "was only the ground,without reasons to support it.The Revenue Divisional Officer after remand adopted what the Collector had stated.This was the illegality pointed out by we Revenue Board in its decision now impugned.I am therefore satisfied,that there is no such error in the order of the Revenue Board as complained of.