CHIATALA NAGESWARARAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ch. V.L. Narasimha Rao, the Permanent Village Munsif of Edupalli village, Guntur District, was placed under suspension pending enquiry in 1970. The 5th respondent was appointed in his place on 4th August, 1970, on a temporary basis till 31st December, 1970, or until the permanent village munsif rejoins duty whichever is earlier. Narasimha Rao, succeeded in the enquiry against him and was ulimatelv reinstated to duty by an order dated 11th February, 1974. The 5th respondent was continuing as Village Munsif until that date. Even after the order or reinstatement of the permanent village munsif, the 5th respondent who was unwilling to step out filed a suit O S. No. 211 of 1974 in the District Munsif's Court, Repalle for a declaration that the order dated llth February, 1974, of reinstatement of Narasimha Rao, was null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the Revenue Divisional Officer from ousting the 5th respondent from service. He also obtained an interim injunction an 22nd March, 1974, which was ultimately vacated on 13th September, 1974. After the interim injunction was vacateJ, Narasimha Rao, took charge and worked as village Munsif for some time. Thereafter he was murdered on 2nd December, 1974. The Police filed a charge-sheet against the 5th Respondent and four others for murdering the said Narasimha Rao. The criminal case was committed to Sessions and the 5th respondent figured as the first accused. The Sessions Court while holding that there was a strong motive for the 5th respondent to do away with the deceased having regard to the circumstances, above stated, acquitted him and the other accused on the ground that the prosecution had filed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The 5th respondent had earlief been impleaded as a respondent in security proceedings on account of village factions.

(2.) On the death of Narasimha Rao on 2nd December, 19?4, the post of village munsif fell vacant. The petitioner who is a cousin of Narasimha Rao, was appointed as temporary village munsif by an order dated 4th March, 1975. Subsequentlv by a notification dated 27th August, 1975, applications for the post of village munsif, were called for. he petitioner, the 5th respondent and. smother applied for the said post; but in the interview, only the petitioner and the 5th respondent appeared. The Revenue Divisional Officer appointed the petitioner as village munsif by an order dated 28th June, 1977. The 5th respondent preferred an appeal t o the District Revenue Officer, who remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer for a de novo enquiry. The petitioner preferred a second anpeal as against this order, to the Commissioner of Land Revenue. The Commissioner held that there was absolutely no ground for remand and considered the case on merits. He upheld the selection of the petitioner as village munsif. The 5th respondent thereupon, filed a revision petition to the State Government under rule 75 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the rules). The Government allowed the appeal by its order dated llth December, 1979. Challenging the legality of the order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) In rule 10 (1) of the Rules, it is itated that the qualifications of a candidate for appointment to a village opice. shall be determined with reference to the date of issue of the notice inviting app'ications. Subsequently this rule was amended by stating that the qualifications will have to be judged with reference to the date when the post fell vacant. But as the Notification in this case was issued on 27th August, 1975 before the amendment, it is admitted by the learned advocates on both sides that the qualifications will have to be judged on the date of notice. On that day the petitioner had passed fifth tandard; whereas the 5th respondent passed Matriculation. The petitioner was aged about 58 years and the 5th respondent was aged about 30 years. It is provided under rule 10 (2) that the person for appointment in the village office shall have: (a) adequate knowledge of rural conditions in general and of the village concerned in particular; (b) Knowledge of revenue matters. Rule 10 (2) (ii) provides that "No person shall be eligible for appointment to any village office if he: (a) has not completed the age of 18 years: (b) is not physically and mentally capable of discharging the duties attached to the office; (c) has been convicted by a criminal Court for any offence involving moral turpitude or (d) has been dismissed from any post under the Government. Rule 10 (2) (3) of the Rules provides the educational qualifications viz., fifth standards or its equivalent examination in the case of village munsifs. It is clear from these rules that as far as educational qualfications are concerned, both the candidates were eligible for appointment and there was no disqualification of appointment in either case under rule 10 (2) (it) of the Rules. In such a case there cannot be any doubt that it is the right and duty of the appointing authority to choose the person who is more suitable for the office. In doing so, the authority has to take in to account the requirements of rule 10 (2) (it) viz, that the candidate should have adequate knowledge of rural conditions in general and of the village concerned in particular and knowledge of revenue matters