B. THIRUMALAI PILLAI Vs. S. RAMALINGAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TILL the 31st December, 1970 respondent No. 1 held the post of karnam in village Melkaripur on a permanent basis. He absented himself from duty without leave and with effect from the 1st January, 1974, the petitioner was appointed a village karnam instead on a temporary basis by the Tahsildar, Chengam whose order was confirmed on the 29th March, 1971 by the Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as the R.D.O.). Later on respondent No. 1 returned to duty and by his order dated the 27th November, 1971, the R.D.O. permitted the first respondent to join duty again. It is this last mentioned order of the R.D.O. that is challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer that is be quashed by a writ of certiorari.

(2.) THE filling up of vacancies in the office of a village karnam is regulated by the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), of which Rules 6, 7, 13 and 14 are relevant and are reproduced below:

(3.) A bare perusal of these Rules would show that a vacancy in the office of a village karnam does not arise by the permanent incumbent thereof merely absenting himself from duty without leave. If he does so absent himself, he might be suspended, removed or dismissed from service, but till action is taken against him and he ceases to hold office by reason of the punishment awarded to him or of his resignation he continues to have the status of the village karnam on a permanent basis so that the question of a vacancy being available does not arise. In case of abandonment of duty by a permanent incumbent, it may be open to the appointing authority to appoint a paid substitute under Sub -rule (3) of Rule 13 of the Rules or treat the vacancy as a temporary vacancy and fill it up under Rule 6 of the Rules but it cannot treat the vacancy as a permanent vacancy so long as the permanent incumbent has not vacated the office. In this view of the matter, no vacancy on a permanent basis can be said to have arisen in the present case by reason of respondent No. 1 merely absenting himself without leave. No action for the abandonment of duty by him having been taken by the appointing authority, he continued to be the permanent incumbent and the impugned order which brought him back in the saddle cannot be considered faulty.