C RAGHURAMAIAH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are Executive Officers working in two separate Gram Panchayats in Kurnool district. They were reverted by an order of the Collector dated 27th October, 1971 to their permanent posts as clerks. The Government, by its Memo. No. i6io/ Estt. VII/71-I, Panchayat Raj, dated 3rd September, 1971, directed that all the notified Gram Panchayats having whole-time executive officers which are having less than Rs. 15,000 average normal income per annum be denotified immediately. Nine such Gram Panchayats, which were having normal average income of less than Rs. 15,000 per annum, were denotified, with the result that the executive officers in those Gram Panchayats had to be provided elsewhere. That led to the junior-most of the executive officers of the Gram Panchayats including the petitioners being reverted. It is this reversion that is now questioned by the petitioners in this writ petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel, Mr. Nagaraja Rao appearing for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of my learned brother M. Krishna Rao, J., in W.P. No. 4267 of 1971 dated 13th March, 1973 quashing the impugned notification of the Government. According to the learned Judge, "there is nothing in the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act to show that an executive officer cannot bs appointed with respect to panchayats having income below Rs. 15,000. There is equally no rule to this effect. The Government has, therefore, no power to instruct the Collector to issue such a notification." I am not inclined to agree with the learned Judge that, because the Government has no power to issue such a notification, it is incumbent upon the Government to make provision for the appointment of the executive officers for Gram Panchayats having income of less than Rs. 15,000 per annum. It is open to the Government to make provision for appointment of the executive officers or direct the sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat to discharge the functions of an executive officer. Neither the Panchayat nor the Government can be compelled to create the posts of executive Officers or appoint a particular individual who has been reverted for want of vacancy as an executive officer. Since I doubt the correctness of the view taken by my learned brother that the Government has no power to issue the impugned notification, I am in duty bound to refer the writ petition where the notification of the Government and the consequent orders of the Collector reverting the petitioners are challenged, to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. The papers may, therefore, be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for orders as to the constitution of a Division Bench.

(3.) In pursuance of the aforesaid order these petitions came on for hearing before the Bench. (Gapal Rao Ekbote, C.J. and Lakshmaiah, J.) Nagaraja Rao, for Petitioner in W.P. No. 5139 of 1971. 0. Adinarqyana Reddy, for Petitioner in W.P. No. 5693 of 1971. The Second Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions.