SATYANARAYANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the order passed by the 1st Respondent-Government in G.O.Rt.No. 1962, Revenue (H) Department, dt. 2-11-1977 and the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner for Survey and Settlements, Board of the Revenue, in B.P.Rt.No. 3142/76, dt. 30-8-1976.

(2.) The facts of the case are: The Post of Village Munsif, Chilakaluripet in Guntur District' was at first sanctioned on an ad-hoc basis for a period of one year from 1-10-1966 to 30-9-1967 and the sanction was being renewed from time to time till the year 1974 when the post was made permanent. The 5th respondent was acting as the temporary village Munsif everslnce the original sanction. On the post being made permanent, the Tahsildar, Narasaraopet issued a notice dated. 14-7-1974 calling for applications for the post from the intending candidates to be filed before him before the 22nd of July, 1974. Only two candidates i.e., the Petitioner and the 5th Respondent filed applications before the Tahsildar, who forwarded the same with his recommendation to the appointing authority viz. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet. The Revenue DivisionaJ Officer found that the petitioner and the 5th respondent were both equally qualified except that, while the petitioner passed the Ninth Standard, the 5th respondent claimed to have passed the Fifth Standard for which, however, he did not produce any evidence and while the petitioner had only three months' experience as a temporary Village Munsif the 5th respondent had very long experience as a temporary Village Munsif having acted as such since the year 1946. The Revenue Divisional Officer took into account the report of the Tahsildar to the effect that the 5th respondent proved to be a most efficient village Munsif for Chilakaluripeta Town. While making the appointment on regular basis, the Revenue Divisional Officer did not take into account the fact of the 5th respondent being the Chairman of the Agricultural Market Committee, Narasaraopet, in so far as, while working as a temporary Village Munsif, the 5th respondent obtained permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer to contest for election as the Chairman of the Agricultural Market Committee, Narasaraopet and to continue as such even while holding the post of the temporary Village Munsif.

(3.) Against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 17-12-1974 appointing the 5th respondent as the Village Munsif, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Guntur Under his order dt. 23-2-1976, the District Revenue Officer allowed the appeal and appointed the petitioner as the Village Munsif of Chilakaluripeta.