NAGI REDDY Vs. B SAYANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement of Raghuvir, J. allowing writ Petition No. 4046 of 1979 filed by the first respondent herein and directing the Commissioner of Land Revenue to consider the Suitability of the Writ Petitioner along with other applicants for the post of Karnam of Chabolu village.

(2.) The Writ petition was filed with the following allegations. The Karnam of Chabolu village died on 30 th Dec. 1976 with the result the post fell vacant. On 20th Jan. 1977, the Tahsildar, Nandyal issued notice under R. 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Village Offices Service Rules calling for applications for the post. At the interview, however, only seven were present. The Revenue Divisional Officer considered that among the candidates, the first respondent herein was suitable for appointment and appointed him. The first respondent, however, did not have the requisite educational qualification prescribed under R. 10 as he did not pass the 8th class. The Sub-Collector, therefore, granted him exemption from the prescribed educational qualification under R. 12.

(3.) On the appeal, the District Revenue Officer confirmed the decision of the Sub Collector. On further appeal, however, the Commissioner, Land Revenue held that the claims of the first respondent herein ought not to have been considered as there was no application by him for the post after the notice calling for applications was issued. The first respondent had applied for the post on 9-1-1977 after the post became vacant but before the notification, calling for applications was published on 20th Jan 1977. The Commissioner held that this was not a valid application as contemplated by the rules. In the result, be held that the case of the first respondent did not fall for consideration at all. He considered inter se the claims of the others and held that the appellant herein deserved to be appointed to the post. As against the decision of the Commissioner the first respondent herein preferred a revision petition to the Government which was dismissed. Thereafter the first respondent herein filed the Writ Petition. Our learned brother, Raghuvir, J. was of the view that no rule was transgressed by considering the application of the first respondent even though it was prior to the calling of the applications of the notice of the Tahsildar. He observed that if an application anterior to the notification is received after the office fell vacant it is difficult to state that the consideration of such an application is bad in law. At any rate, when once an application has been considered by the authorities concerned, there was no reason to hold that the appointment is invalid.