D SANJEEVA RAO Vs. M SANKARA RATHNAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and the first respondent were the applicants for appointment to the post of Village Officer. Under the relevant Rules, a person who has been adjudicated as an insolvent and has not obtained the order of discharge, is disqualified for the appointment to the said post. More than a decade and half ago the Insolvency Court, wherein the insolvency proceedings were pending against the first respondent, passed an order annulling the adjudication. The question therefore, is whether after annulment of the adjudication, the first respondent still remained disqualified for appointment to the above post.

(2.) By a notice dated 27th February, 1974, the Tahsildar, Nandyal, invited applications for the appointment to the post of Village Officer under rule 10 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), fixing the last date on 21st March, 1974. It was also stated in the notice that the applications received thereafter shall not be entertained. The application of the first respondent was received in time, whereas the appellant's application was received subsequent to the scheduled date. The aspect as to when exactly the application of the appellant was received will be adverted to at the appropriate stage. The Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the appointing authority, appointed the appellant while holding that the first respondent stands disqualified, inasmuch as he has been adjudicated as an insolvent and has not obtained an order of discharge within the meaning of rule 11 of the Rules and the order of the Insolvency Court passed under section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the year 1964 annulling the adjudication will not place him in the position of a discharged insolvent for qualifying to the said post. The rest of the hierarchy of Revenue Authorities, namely, the District Revenue Officer on first appeal, the Board of Revenue in second appeal and eventually the Government in revision concurred with the Revenue Divisional Officer. The first respondent herein aggrieved against the revisional order, successfully challenged in this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence this writ appeal.

(3.) Out of several contentions raised for and on behalf of the appellant and the first respondent, the questions in the main that emerge for determination are-(1) whether an unconditional order of annulment of adjudication passed under section 43 of the Act removes the disqualification contemplated under rule 11 of the Rules for the appointment to the post of Village Officer. (2) Whether the application received beyond a stipulated date is entertainable under rule 10 of the Rules. (3) Under what circumstances the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can interference with the orders passed by the quasi-judicial or administrative authorities.