PADMANABHA MENON Vs. RDO MALAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is to quash certain orders passed by respondents 1 to 3, who are respectively the Revenue Divisional Officer, malapuram, the District Collector, Kozhikode and the board of Revenue, Trivandrum, by which the fourth respondent was appointed as the Adhikari of Karuvarakundu Amsom rejecting the claims of the petitioner, who was his rival applicant. Earlier, the Revenue Divisional Officer had appointed the petitioner as the permanent adhikari of that Amsom, first by Ext. P. 1, order, dated May 23, 1956, and later, after Ext. P1 was set aside by the District Collector, by Ext. P3, order, dated December 25, 1956. An appeal preferred by the fourth respondent against Ext. P3 was dismissed by the District Collector by Ext. P5, order, dated May 31, 1957. In revision by the Board of Revenue at the instance of the fourth respondent, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and the matter was remanded for "passing fresh orders on the subject, after considering the intrinsic claims of the two applicants" by Ext. P7, order, dated March 11, 1958, the board observing, that the reasons adduced by the Revenue Divisional Officer for appointing the petitioner were not sufficient, for superseding the claim of the fourth respondent who, in the words of the Board, "has got experience as adhikari of the same village and selecting another (the petitioner) whose experience is confined to a neighbouring village". The fact, however, was, that the fourth respondent had worked as assistant Menon in the same village for 91/2 years, and not as Adhikari as stated in Ext. P7; but this did not make any difference, for the Revenue Divisional Officer took his qualification as menon also into consideration, and after weighing the respective claims of the petitioner and the fourth respondent, appointed the latter temporarily as adhikari of Karuvarakundu Amsom by Ext. P8, order, dated June 26,1958. THIS was confirmed on appeal by Ext. P9, order passed by the District Collector, and in revision by Ext. P11, order passed by the Board of Revenue. The orders sought to be quashed in this petition are Exts. P7, P8, P9 and P11.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner pressed several grounds before me, in support of the petition, but I do not think, that I can accept any of them as valid or sustainable. It was complained, that Ext. P11 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, first, because the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard 'on his revision petition before it was dismissed, secondly, that no reasons have been set out in Ext. P11, and thirdly, that there has been discrimination by the Board of revenue against the petitioner, for, on the former occasion the fourth respondent was heard on the revision petition preferred by him for passing Ext. P7.

(3.) THE second ground urged by the petitioner, that the board of Revenue had circumscribed the scope of the remand to a consideration of the alleged superior claim of the fourth respondent, by reason of his experience as the Adhikari of the same village, and that therefore a de novo consideration of the rival claims of the applicants, as had been undertaken by the subordinate authorities, was not permissible, has no foundation. Far from limiting the scope of the enquiry, the Board of Revenue, after adverting to the claim advanced before it by the fourth respondent, left it to the subordinate authorities to "consider the intrinsic claims of the two applicants". This was what the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector did. I am not therefore prepared to accept the contention, that the authorities transgressed the limits of the enquiry or committed any error, much less an error of law apparent on the face of the record. This ground is accordingly overruled.