P V RAMANAYYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE AYACUT DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL TAXES BOARD OF REVENUE A P HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P.V. Ramanayya, Y. S. Theodore and P. Sivaramayya are the petitioners in W.P. No. 975 of 1974. P. V. Ramanayya and Y. S. Theodore are on the verge of their retirement from Government Service. Yet, at this late stage, they are compelled to wage a legal battle to protect their inclusion in the approved panel of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1960; this because, behind their backs, others obtained orders from this Court directing the Government to revise the panel. The necessary facts are these: P. Ramanayya (3rd respondent in W.P. No. 975 of 1974 and 1st petitioner in W.P. No. 363 of 1975) who was included in the 1961 approved panel of Deputy Tahsildars filed W.P.No. 828 of 1967 in which he questioned the inclusion of his Juniors, M. Venkataramaiah and P. Suryanarayana in the approved panel of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1959 P. V. Ramanayya, Y. S. Theodore and P. Sivaramayya in the 1960 panel and N. V. Ramaiah, D. Akkappa Naidu D' Venkata Subbayya, Y. Radhakrishnayya, B. Raghavulu, Munirathnam and Satyamurthy in the 1961 panel, above him He claimed that M. Venkataramayya and P. Suryanarayana were over-aged and not qualified to be included in the 1959 panel but were so included by reason of a relaxation granted under rule 47. According to him, the relaxation of the rule in their favour and their inclusion in the panel was illegal when qualified candidates were available for inclusion. He questioned the inclusion of P. V Ramanayya and Y. S. Theodore in the 1960 panel on the ground that they were both junior to him ard the only reason for their inclusion was that they would be ineligible for inclusion in the 1961 panel as they would be disqualified by crossing the age limit by then. He questioned the inclusion of Sivaramayya in the 1960 panel on the ground that he had been included pursuant to the communal G.O. which had been struck down by the Supreme Court. He questioned the inclusion of Akkappa Naidu and Obulapathi on the ground that they had not passed the Survey and Maintenance test by the qualifying date, that is, ist July 1961. They should not, therefore, have been included in the 1961 panel. He questioned the inclusion of D. Venkatasubbaiah Y. Radhaknshnaiah and B Raghavalu on the ground that they were included in the list by relaxing the age rule which was not permissible when there were qualified candidates available for inclusion in the panel. All the persons mentioned by P V. Ramanayya in the writ petition as illegally included in the various panels were claimed by him to be his juniors. It was alleged by P. Ramanayya that the illegal inclusion of these persons in the various panels had affected his seniority with the result that he was facing C. Radhakrishnamaurthy and P.V. Subrahmanyam (the petitioners in W.P. No. 947 of 1975 also filed a similar writ Petition (W.P.No. 4125 of 1968) raising substantially the same questions. J. Munirathnam filed W.P. No. 809 of 1967 raising similar questions. In his case there were other complications as he had been transferred from Guddapah District to Nellore District.

(2.) The most significant aspect of those writ petitions (as it now turns out) was that none of the persons whose inclusion in the 1959, 1960 and 1961 panels was questioned was impleaded as a party to any of the Writ Petitions. That was extraordinary perhaps it was deliberate. No explanation has been offered though Sri Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 947 of 1975 made some attempt to justify what was done earlier. I will refer to his argument later. What is of importance is that it passed unnoticed by the Court that the very persons whose inclusion in the panels was challenged were not made parties to the proceedings. I can well visualise what must have happened before my brother Madhava Reddy, J. who heard those writ petitions. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners my brother who must have been under the impression that all the necessary parties were before him would have asked ' who is appearing for the other side ?' The learned Government Pleader would have got up and argued and there the matter must have ended. Either the learned Government Pleader or the learned counsel for the petitioners should have brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the persons whose inclusion in the various panels was questioned had not been impleaded as parties to the writ petitions and were not before the learned Judge. That was not done. Whatever it was that happened before Madhava Reddy, J., the fact remains that valuable rights of persons were determined to their detriment in their absence.

(3.) Madhava Reddy, J., held that the Government could not relax the age- rule in order to appoint persons who had passed the prescribed age limit if fully qualified candidates were available for appointment. On that ground the learned Judge held that the relaxation of the rule in favour of M. V. Ramanayya, P. Suryanarayana, Radhakrishnayya and Raghavulu was illegal and their inclusion in the respective panels was bad. With regard to P. V. Ramanayya and Y. S. Theodore the learned Judge held that the only reason for their inclusion in the 1960 panel was that they would become disqualified for inclusion in the 1961 panel on account of their age. He held that when duly qualified persons like the petitioners before him were available P. V. Ramanayya and Y. S. Theodore should not have been preferred. The learned Judge held that the exclusion of the petitioners and the inclusion of those two persons was bad in law. With regard to P. Sivaramayya, it was held that his inclusion in the panel was illegal in view of the fact that the communal G.O. had been struck down. As a result of these conclusions the learned Judge directed the Government to consider the inclusion of the names of the petitioners before him in the panels for the respective years claimed by them.