G PANDURANGA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, G. Panduranga Redddy, was working as the Police Patel and the 5th respondent, A. Narasimha Reddy, was working as Mali Patel of Talkondapalli Village in Kalwakurthi Taluk. Mahabubnagar District before the abolition of Watans in the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Andhra Pradesh Watans (Abolition) Act, 1978.

(2.) The Governor of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1978 (Hereinafter called the Rules) on 26th July, 1978. These rules were givea retrospective effect from 7th December, 1977. Rule 4-provides that the posts of Police Patel, and Mali Patel in respect of every village or a part of a village or a group of villages shall stand merged into one post of Patel with effect from 1st August, 1978. The explanation to that rule says, that on the merger of the posts of Police Patel and Mali Patel into one, the posts of Mali Patel and Police Patel shall be deemed to bave been abolished and a new post of Patel created with effect from the 1st August, 1978. Rule 9-A provides that the post of Patel created shall be filled in by retaining the person whom the appointing authority considers better qualified and more suitable to discharge the functions of that post of Patel from among the outgoing holders of the posts of Police Patel and MaliPatel of that village or part of village or a group of villages as the case may be. Rule 5 provides that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall be the appointing authority in respect of the categories specified in Class I of the service.

(3.) In veiw of these rules, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, made a selection amongst the petitioner and the 5th respondent and selected the petitioner for the post of Patel of the village. Aggrieved by that order, the 5th respondent preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar under Rule 59. The Joint Collector allowed the appeal for, in his view, the 5th respondent was more suitable to hold the post than the petitioner. Against that order the petitioner filed a Second Appeal under Rule 63 before the Commissioner, Land Revenue. He also filed I petition for stay along with his appeal. The Commissioner, Land Revenue, admitted the second appeal but refused to grant stay. Thereupon, the petitioner withdrew the second appeal on 26-6-1979. Subsequently, ke filed a petition before the Commissioner for restoration of the appeal that was withdrawn. The Commissioner dismised that petition. Then, the petitioner filed a revision before the Government under Rule 74. During the pendency of the revision the Government granted stay On 29-7-1981 the Government dismissed the revision and vacated the stay. Thereupon the petitioner filed this writ petition.