T. MUTHUKUMARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was one of the four applicants for the post of village headman of Senthurai village. The Revenue Divisional Officer, the third respondent herein, found that the petitioner and the fourth respondent had all the requisite qualifications, but that the petitioner is to be preferred for the reason that he had got previous experience of eleven years. On appeal by the fourth respondent, the second respondent cancelled the petitioner's appointment and appointed the fourth respondent instead as village headman on the ground that as between the petitioner and the fourth respondent who had the requisite qualifications, the petitioner was over-aged and therefore, the fourth respondent was to be selected. Aggrieved against the order of the second respondent, the petitioner went before the first respondent, but without any success. The petitioner has now approached this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent which virtually affirms the order of the second respondent appointing the fourth respondent as village headman.

(2.) The two grounds of attack put for-ward by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner before me are:

(3.) As regards the first contention, the Learned Counsel refers to Rule 10 of the said Rules and states that it is obligatory for the first respondent to record reasons in writing while disposing of a revision petition filed before it. But, a perusal of Rule 10(4) indicates that the Government may call for and examine the records relating to any order passed on appeal by the District Collector and, for reasons to be recorded in writing, annul, modify or reverse or remit for reconsideration such order on any of the grounds specified in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10. Sub-rule (5) sets out the grounds on which the order may be annulled, modified or reversed or remitted for reconsideration. In this case, the revisional authority has refused to interfere with the order passed by the District Collector on appeal. The question is whether the first respondent should have recorded reasons in writing for rejecting the petitioner's revision petition. The recording of reasons has been made obligatory under the rule only when the order appealed against is annulled or modified or reversed or remitted for reconsideration. The recording of reasons for annulling, modifying or reversing or remitting for reconsideration any appellate order is necessary as the statute itself sets out the grounds on which an order could be annulled, modified or reversed or remitted and one must know as to which of the grounds set out in the sub-clauses of Sub-rule (5) have been relied on by the re-visional authority for the purpose of annulling, modifying or reversing or remitting for reconsideration of the appellate order. But, the recording of reasons has not been made obligatory on the part of the first respondent when it is not annulling, modifying or reversing or remitting for reconsideration any appellate order. I cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order in question is vitiated for the reason that the Government has not set out the reasons for rejection of the petitioner's revision petition in the impugned order.