CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR Vs. THE COLLECTOR OF PALGHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's case in this writ petition is that the post of Adhikari of Mannampra amsom, Palghat District, belonged to his family, that on the death of Sri. Kongot Achuthan Nair in September 1959, the petitioner was temporarily appointed as the Adhikari of the Village by the Tahsildar, Alathur as per the order dated 3-10-1959, Ext. P-1. The petitioner says that he has passed the S. S. L.C. Examination, and the examination in the First Part of the Village Sanitation Test conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, one of the two tests prescribed for the post of Adhikari and that the termination of his services by Ext. P-7 and P-11 was illegal. The Tahsildar notified the permanent vacancy of the post by publishing notice and invited applications for appointment to the post. The petitioner submitted an application. Thereafter the Tahsildar conducted an enquiry. Of the 4 applicants the petitioner alone had passed one of the tests prescribed for the post. The other three had not passed any test. The petitioner was also related to the last holder of the office. So the Tahsildar recommended the petitioner for being appointed. The Sub Collector of Palghat as per his order dated 24-12-1959 appointed the petitioner temporarily to the vacancy and directed the Tahsildar to make a fresh recommendation from qualified applicants. The Board of Revenue had directed that all appointments on or after 30-5-1957 relating to the Village Establishment should only be on a temporary basis in view of the then pending reorganisation of Village Establishment in Malabar Districts. On 28-7-1961 the Sub Collector again passed an order allowing the petitioner to continue in the post till the reorganisation of the Village Officers' Establishment is completed. Ext. P-4 is a copy of that order. The Kerala Hereditary Village Offices (Abolition) Act, Act 33 of 1961, defines the holder of a hereditary village office as follows:

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that he was the holder of a hereditary village office as he was appointed in an officiating capacity in a permanent vacancy after a selection in accordance with the procedure in force before the appointed date. The District Collector passed an order on 28-8-1961 stating that the petitioner should continue as a village officer under the Act. Ext. P-5 is a copy of that order. In view of the abolition of the post of village officer in Mannampra the petitioner was posted as village officer in Kannampra and he was discharging his duties as village officer in Kannampra. Thereafter the Collector passed an order on 25-9-1963 directing the termination of his appointment. Ext. P-7 is the copy of that order. The reason for passing that order was that the petitioner was not appointed after following the full procedure and that he did not pass one of the tests prescribed for "Adhikarie's post" and thereafter he is not entitled to the benefits of Act 33 of 1961. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this court as O. P. 1916/63. That petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has got a remedy by way of appeal. The petitioner therefore filed an appeal before the Government and they passed Ext. P-11 order holding that since the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the procedure in force for the appointment of an Adhikari he was not entitled to be appointed as a Village Officer under the Act. The petitioner challenges Ext. P-7 and P-11 orders and his contention is that the order of the Government stating that he has not been appointed to the post of Adhikari after following the procedure in force for the appointment to that post is not correct.

(3.) The procedure for appointment to the post of Adhikari is mentioned in G. O. (MS) No. 788/Revenue dated 19-8-1961. The provisions in the G. O are: (1) that the candidate should have been qualified according to the orders that existed in the Malabar area for recruitment to the post of Adhikari, and (2) that he should have been appointed after following the full procedure for recruitment to the post. The second condition means that the vacancy should have been duly notified by the Tahsildar and applications called, that a panel of names with full details about the applicants should have been submitted by the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer, and that the Revenue Divisional Officer, after due enquiry should have selected the best amongst the applicants, keeping in view the hereditary principle that was then in vogue. The petitioner's contention, as already stated, is that he was appointed to the post in accordance with this procedure.