V LAKSHMANASWAMY Vs. COLLECTOR SRIKAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner is to quash the order of the Personal Assistant to the Collector, Srikakulam in his D. Dis. 9222/68 dated September 23, 1969 revising the order of the Assistant Collector, Srikakulam dated 22-5-1968 appointing the petitioner as the Village Munsif of Sariapalli. Tekkali taluk, Srikakulam District.

(2.) The proposals to fill the vacancy of the Village Munsif of Sariapalli, Tekkali taluh, in the District of Snkakulam, which have arisen on account of the death of B. Raminaidu, the Permanent Village Munsif. were sent by the Tabsildar on January 24, 1968 to the Assistant Collector. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector instructed the Tahsildar on 25-2-1968 to send up specific proposals to appoint a suitable candidate. The Tahsildar, Tekkali, in his proceedings dated March 25, 1968 submitted specific proposal recommending for the appointment of the petitioner as the Village Munsif for the village. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of the fame village and be submitted his resignation to the office of the Sarpanch to the District Panchayat Officer who accepted the same on March 12, 1968. The Block Development Officer also has accepted the resignation of the petitioner as Sarpanch on 13-3-1968 Though he was functioning as Sarpanch on the date of tie interview, he was not the Sarpanch on the date of the recommendation of the Tabsildar. The Assistant Collector, by his order dated 22-5-1968, had appointed the petitioner as the Village Munsif. The respondents 3 & 4 preferred revision petitions before the District Collector. The Personal Assistant to the Collector has set aside the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he being the Sarpanch of .the gram panchayat, was not eligible to be appointed on the date of the vacancy to be filled up. and appointed the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by that order, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. The 4th respondent, whose revision was rejected by the Personal Assistant to the Collector, has preferred a revision against that order to the Board of Revenue which is now pending.

(3.) Sri Surya Rao for the petitioner contends that the order of the Personal Assistant to the Collector in setting aside the appointment of his client on the ground that he was not eligible to be appointed as Village Munsif on the date of the interview by the Tahsildar, is illegal and without jurisdiction.