PALLI JOGI NAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the Order of the District Collector, Srikakulam, who set aside the appointment of the 2nd petitioner as deputy to the registered minor headman of Regulapadu village on the ground that he was not qualified. It appears that the 2nd petitioner was first registered as a deputy of another minor, but that minor's registration was cancelled and another minor, the son of the 1st petitioner was registered as the headman of Regulapadu village. The 1st petitioner acting as the guardian, first gave consent to one Pinnam Naidu, but subsequently gave statements before the Estates Manager, Narasannapet, on 16th March, 1954, requesting the 2nd petitioner to be appointed as the Village Munsiff during the minority of his son. Form the statements made by the 1st petitioner the Estates Manager concluded that the consent given to Pinnam Naidu was not voluntary, but given under pressure and coercion. Having regard to these statements, the Estates Manager acting on Board's Standing Order No. 148 (9) and taking into consideration that the 1st petitioner sincerely desired the appointment of the 2nd petitioner and also taking into consideration that the 2nd petitioner had previously acted and discharged his duties efficiently and bore good character, appointed him. Against this order, Pinnam Naidu filed a revision petition before the Collector who while admitting that under Board's Standing Order No. 148 (9) a deputy should be appointed according to the wishes of the minor's guardian or someone acceptable to him, held that the 2nd petitioner was not qualified and that the oral examination contemplated in section 20 of Act III of 1895 applied only to hereditary village officers but not to deputies and acting incumbents. In the results the Estates Manager was directed to ask the minor's guardian to select a fully qualified candidate and even then if the minor's guardian persists in proposing an unqualified candidate the Estates Manager should appoint a qualified candidate.

(2.) The short question in this writ petition is whether the Collector was right in holding that the 2nd petitioner was not qualified. This would depend upon the view that is taken on the provisions of section 10 (1) and (5) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, III of 1895, which are as follows:-

(3.) From the provisions of sub-section (1) it is clear that a person cannot be appointed unless he is qualified according to the educational test prescribed for the office in question by the Board of Revenue by rules made under section 20. For the purposes of sub-section (5), the appointment of a person to be appointed as deputy also should be qualified under sub-section (1). In other words, he should also fulfil the requirements of the educational qualifications prescribed by the Board of Revenue under the rules made under section 20. The educational qualifications prescribed for the deputy as well as for the permanent incumbent are the same as those prescribed by rules made under section 20 and there is no warrant for the suggestion that these qualifications are different. The qualifications prescribed by the Board under section 20 admittedly are those contained in rule 21 which in so far as they relate to the headmen are as follows:-