ACHUTHAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on 30-6-1955 to act temporarily as Menon, Anjukunnu amsom, Waynad taluk. Subsequently he was ordered to take charge as acting Menon in Nallurnad amsom in the same taluk. While discharging his duties as acting Menon, he was appointed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tellicherry, as Menon of Nallurnad amsom in a vacancy caused by the dismissal of the third respondent from service. He was working there when he received an order (Ext. P. 4) from the Tahsildar, North Waynad taluk, directing the third respondent to take charge from him. The petitioner prays for quashing this order. Respondents 1 and 2 are the State of Kerala and the Tahsildar of North Waynad taluk respectively.

(2.) An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 stating that the order appointing the petitioner as permanent Menon of Nallurnad amsom was the result of a mistake. The third respondent who was the permanent Menon had been dismissed from service and the petitioner was appointed in his place. At the time the petitioner was appointed, the third respondent's appeal against the order of dismissal was pending before the Board of Revenue and the Revenue Divisional Officer was not aware of the pendency of this appeal. The Board of Revenue allowed the third respondent's appeal, quashed the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the third respondent. It is also stated that this is not a matter coming within the purview of Article 311 of the Constitution and that the order (Ext. P. 4) is not liable to be quashed. The third respondent has filed an affidavit supporting respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) Two points are urged on behalf of the petitioner. The first is that he was removed from service by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. It is argued that while his appointment was by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the order of removal was by the Tahsildar and that the order therefore contravened Article 311. No doubt, Ext. P. 4 is signed by the Tahsildar, but this does not mean that the Tahsildar removed the petitioner from service. The Tahsildar was only communicating the decision of the Board of Revenue in the appeal preferred by the third respondent. The first point is therefore without any substance.