P SUKANYA Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order of the Tribunal, dated 28. 9. 2007 in O. A. No. 367 of 2007.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. She filed the above o. A. , seeking to declare the action of the 1 st respondent in issuing proceedings no. A3/809/04, dated 5. 1. 2007 confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No. A4/7496/2004, dated 4. 4. 2005 as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and further to direct the respondents to continue the applicant as Village Servant, gangloor Village, Pulkal Mandal and pay all consequential benefits.

(3.) IT is the case of the applicant that she has been appointed as Village Servant vide proceedings dated 1. 2. 2006 by the 2nd respondent on compassionate grounds as her husband died on 20. 12. 2005 while he was in service. Originally, the husband of the applicant was appointed as Village servant on 3. 12. 1990 after following due procedure and he was posted as Village servant of Gangloor Village in the vacancy caused due to death of his father, viz. , p. Ankaiah and subsequently, he was directed to allow his other share holders to attend to Village Servant's duties as per previous practice in Vota Bandi System vide letter dated 7. 12. 2004. The same was challenged by the husband of the applicant before the Chief Commissioner of Land administration under Rule 73 of A. P. (T. A.)Village Officers Service Rules, 1978. But, the said appeal was rejected directing the husband of the applicant to file an appeal before the R. D. O concerned. The said proceedings were challenged before the tribunal in O. A. No. 6480 of 2004 and the tribunal disposed of the same with a direction to file an appeal before the District collector, Medak. Subsequent thereto, the joint Collector vide proceedings dated 4. 4. 2005 directed the husband of the applicant to allow his share holders to work on Vota Bandi System as per instructions contained in Memo No. 91991/06-1/02-3, dated 23. 1. 1996. On that, the applicant's husband filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, in which the 1st respondent granted stay against the orders of the Joint collector. Thereafter, O. A. No. 1565 of 2006 was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to continue the applicant as village Servant as per the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 1. 2. 2006. The tribunal dismissed the O. A. , as not maintainable while directing the applicant to file a stay petition before the 2nd respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order and granting status quo till such time to continue the applicant and further directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the Appeal No. 3/809 of 2004 within two months from the date of receipt of the order. But the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal and vacated the status quo orders. Having aggrieved by the same, the present O. A. , has been filed.