ADAPA SIVAJI NAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a temporary village Munsif of Linga Samudram, Kondukuru Taluk, Prakasam District when application for Flling up the post on permanent basis were called. The petitioner and the 5th respordent applied for appointment to that post. On a consideration of the relative merits of both the; applicants the Revenue Divisional Officei by his order dated 22nd January, 1972 selected the petitioner and appointed him to the permanent post of Village Munsif. On appeal by the 5th respondent, the District Revenue Officer set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and appointed the 5th respondent as Village Munsif. Upcn a further appeal by the petitioner against that order to the Boand of Revenue, the Board of Revenue by its order dated 2nd June, 1973 confirmed the appointment of the 5th respondent. Against that order the petitioner filed a revision petition Defore the Government. Having regard to the amendment in rule 75 of the Village Officers Service Rules made in G.O.Ms. No. 413 Revenue dated 8th Alay, 1973 published in the Gazette on 10th May, 1973, that revision petition was held to be not maintainable. Under this amendment the words "the Government or" occurring in rule 75 were deleted.

(2.) Mr. Dhanurbhanudu, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends notwithstanding the amendment in rule 75 made in G.O.Ms. No. 413, Revenue dated 8th May, 1973 the petitioner had a right to file a revision petition and the Government was bound tc entertain the same inasmuch as the proceeding had commenced in 1972 when the Government under rule 75 was vested with the revisional jurisdiction. That vested right has not been taken away by the subsequent amendment.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader, however, contends that the right to file a revision under rule 75 vests in the petitioner only upon the disposal of the appeal by the Board of Revenue on 2nd June, 1973 and when even before that date, rule 75 was amended takirg away the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to entertain any review petition, no review petition lies. Under the said Government Order the then existing rule 75 was sub-tituted by a new Rule. The previous Rule reads as follows: