RISHIKESAVAN NAIDU Vs. S SRINIVASA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal against the judgment of Srinivasan, J. concerns the validity of an appointment to the office of a village headman for Vembi village in South Arcot Dt. The appointment to the office was regulated by the Madras Hereditary Village offices Act, 1895. The office became vacant sometime during the year 1936, when one Pattabhirama Naidu, then a minor, was registered as the person lawfully entitled to hold the office. The first respondent herein was appointed as his deputy to do the duties pertaining to the office. Pattabhirama Naidu did not eventually acquire the necessary qualifications for becoming a village headman within the time allowed to him under the statute. The next to succeed him was one Munuswami Naidu. He also happened to be a minor; he was registered and the first respondent was then appointed to function as his deputy. History repeated itself, as Munuswami failed to qualify himself for the post. The next in line of succession was the appellant, who was a minor at the time when Munuswami forfeited his right to the office. The appellant was recognised by the authorities as a person lawfully entitled to the post on 5-51950, that is, after the Constitution of India came into being. The first respondent was allowed to be his deputy. Contrary, perhaps, to the expectations of the first respondent, the appellant passed the prescribed tests within the time allowed to him, after attaining the age of majority. He applied on-12-1959 to enter upon the duties of his office. His attempt was countered by the first respondent, who made frivolous and false averments about the appellant's character and financial status. It was objected that the application itself had not been filed within the time permitted under the law.

(2.) BOTH the Revenue Divisional Officer, in the first instance and the district revenue Officer, on appeal, found that objections of the first respondent to be untenable and they affirmed the appellant's right to the office and allowed him to enter upon his duties. The order of the appellate authority was passed on 28-101960.

(3.) ON 6-12-1960 the supreme Court delivered judgment in a case from the andhra Pradesh holding that the office of a village headman under the Madras hereditary Village Offices Act, was an "office" under the state within the meaning of that term in Art. 16 (1) and (2) of the Constitution and appointments thereto could not be made to depend on the basis of descent alone; for, then it would be discriminatory. The Supreme Court also invalidated S. 6 (1) of that enactment. We are not however, concerned in this case about the latter aspect of the matter. The decision of the Supreme Court has been reported in Dasaratharama Rao v. State of A. P. ,