CHENNESMUDREM SUBBARAYAPPA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sambasiva Rao, J. The principal question that is debated before us and which we will have to answer is whether Rule 8 of the rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service holders of Village Offices in Andhra area would apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Allied to that question is also the problem of understanding the true meaning of that rule

(2.) We will first record the facts, which have given rise to these contentions. For the village of Gandrajupalli in the District cf Chittoor, there used to be a permanent village Munsiff, who had been holding the office by virtue of his hereditary right. On 20th of July 1963 he died, thus creating a permanent vacancy in the office At that time there was a ban on filling up the vacancies of of permanent posts. So, the appropriate authorises proposed to fill up the post on a temporary basis. Accordingly, one Narsappa was appointed on 29th of November, 1963 by the Sub- Collector. Narsappa was chosen out of the applicants, of whom the present writ petitioner-appellant was one. Feeling aggrieved by Narsappa's appointment, the petitioner appealed to the Collector, which was allowed and the Collector appointed him as the Village Munsif instead of Narsappa. That order was dated 6th of November, 1965 In 1968, certain charges of mis-appropriation were levelled against the petitioner as a consequence of which a substantive punishment of suspension for two years was inflicted on him.

(3.) However, in the meanwhile, the ban against filling up the vacancies permanently had been lifted and the authorities concerned proceeded to take steps for filling up the permanent vacancy of the Village Munsif of Gandrajupalli. A notice dated 22nd of July, 1967 was issued calling for applications. It is worthy of note at this stage, that this notice was issued even before the charges were framed against the present petitioner and action taken against him. The petitioner himself was an applicant and respondent No. 3 in the writ petition and in the writ appeal was the only other applicant for the permanent post On a comparative assessment and appraisal of the merits of the two candidates, the appointing authority decided that the third respondent was the better of the two, and, so, appointed him by order dated 29th of December 1969,