NAME RANGA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the erstwhile Village Officer. The posts of Village Officers were abolished in the year 1984 and new posts of Village Assistants were created by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said posts of Village Assistants were also abolished and the posts of Village Administrative Officers have come into being by the A.P. Village Administrative Officer's Service Rules, 1990. The petitioner applied for the post of Village Administrative Officer. The case of the applicant for appointment was however not considered and the 4th respondent was appointed by the third respondent as Administrative Officer. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent herein who was the competent authority under Rule 50 of the A.P. Village Administrative Officer's Service Rules, 1990. The appellate authority, without taking decision in the matter exercising his jurisdiction, by order dated 24-4-2001 directed the writ petitioner to approach the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration in view of the changed statutory provision. Seeking to quash the said order as illegal, the petitioner filed the original application before the learned Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal disposed of the original application directing the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Land Administration and further directing the said authority to examine the appeal and dispose of the same.

(2.) As noticed hereinbefore, the writ petitioner has preferred the appeal before the District Collector as far as 1992. It is not in dispute that the cause of action for preferring appeal by the petitioner arose in the year 1992. He preferred the appeal in the year 1992 itself when the Collector was the appellate authority in terms of Rule 50 of the Village Administrative Officers' Rules. The said Rules underwent an amendment by reason of G.O. Ms. No.246 dated 8-3-1996. The Rule position, as it stood before amendment and after amendment is in the following terms: Before Amendment 3. There shall be a Village Administrative Officer appointed for every village or for a group of villages such number of Village Administrative Officers as the Government or Commissioner of Land Revenue or the District Collector may from time to time consider necessary. The appointing authority for these posts shall be the Revenue Divisional Officer. 50.(1) Against an order of appointment of a village Administrative Officer made under Rule 9(e) an appeal shall lie to the Collector within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of appointment and a second appeal shall lie to the Commissioner of Land Revenue within ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the order of the Collector. (2) Against an order of appointment of Village Administrative Officer made by direct recruitment an appeal shall lie to the Joint Collector within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of appointment and second appeal shall lie to the Commissioner of land Revenue within ninety days from the date of receipt of the order of the Joint Collector. After Amendment 3. There shall be a village Administrative Officer appointed for every village or for a group of villages, such number of Village Administrative Officers as the Government or Commissioners of Land Revenue may from time to time consider necessary. The appointing authority for these posts shall be the Joint Collector. The District shall be treated as the Unit for the purpose of appointment of village Administrative Officers. 50. Against an order of appointment of a Village Administrative Officer made under clause (e) of Rule 9, an appeal lies to the Commissioner of Land Revenue within ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the orders of the Joint Collector.

(3.) A right of appeal vests in a litigant on the date of institution of the lis. Such a right cannot be taken away except by reason of a statutory interdict. The petitioner had a right of appeal in terms of the old Rules. The appellate authority when the appeal was filed was the Collector. Now against the order of a Collector an appeal lies before the Commissioner of Land Revenue and such appeal is required to be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of the order of the Collector. Having regard to the fact that the appeal had been preferred by the petitioner prior to coming into force of the aforesaid amendment, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal went wrong in holding that the endorsement of the Collector dated 24-4-2001 was tenable. Keeping in view the fact that in terms of the old Rule the Collector was the appellate authority, we are of the opinion that the Collector should have been directed to dispose of the said appeal.