G.V. Ramanamurthy vs The Govt., of A.P., by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and 4 others

Gangadhara Rao, J.—This appeal is filed against the judgment of Lakshmaiah, J., in We No 6053 of 1973. Applications were called for to fill up the permanent vacancy of the post of the Village Munsif of Gollala-Mulakam. The appellant and the 5th respondent applied for it. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, interviewed both of them, but before he could pass orders, he was transferred. His successor did not interview them once again, but passed orders, basing his selection on the record. He preferred the appellant on the ground that he was younger in age and had more experience than the 5th respondent. Against his order, the 5th respondent preferred an appeal to the District Collector, but that appeal was dismissed. Thereafter he preferred a Second Appeal to the Board of Revenue but that was also dismissed. Then he filed a revision before the Government which was also dismissed. Finally, he filed the present writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was allowed by Lakshmaiah, J., on the grounds firstly on the ground that an interview was a condition precedent and was jurisdictional prerequisite which had not been complied with, and secondly on the ground that there was an enquiry and a report against the 5th respondent which had been taken into consideration while rejecting his claim for the office, without furnishing him a copy of that report with the result that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice.

In this appeal it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that under the Rules, there is no need to hold an interview and, secondly, the claim of the 5th respondent for the office was not negatived on the ground that there was an enquiry and an adverse report against him. I find substance in both these contentions. Under the Rules regulating the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of holders of the Village Offices in the Andhra Area, 1969, there is no Rule as such which prescribes that an interview of all the candidates should be held by the Revenue Divisional Officer before he could select one of them for the post of a Village Officer, Even a reading of Rule 10, which deals with the general and other qualifications for appointment, does not show that an interview should be held. It is true that according to that Rule, a person for appointment to any of the village officer in the service should have adequate knowledge of rural conditions in general and of the village concerned in particular, and knowledge of revenue matters, and no parson would be eligible for appointment to any village office if he has not completed the age of 18 years and it not physically and mentally capable of discharging the duties attached to the office. From a reading of this Rule I am, however, not prepared to hold that the holding of an interview is a condition precedent to selection. It is true that, as has been rightly observed by Chinnappa Reddy, J., in W.P. Nos. 111 and 2152 of 1975, dated 28th October, 1975, "it may permissible for the appointing authority to interview all the applicants it he so desires in assessing their respective capabilities". He may interview them in order to satisfy himself whether the applicants fulfil the requirements of Rule 10.I, therefore disagree with and learned brother Lakshmaiah, J., that holding an interview is a condition precedent, or that it is a pre-requisite touching the jurisdiction of the appointing authority under Rule 10.

With regard to the second ground, I have to state that the Revenue Divisional Officer has selected the appellant on the sole ground that he was younger in age and had more experience than the 5th respondent. This finding was confirmed by the District Collector, the Board of Revenue and the Government. They did not advert to any other ground. Therefore, I have to take it that the appellant has been preferred to the 5th respondent only on that ground It is true that in the counter-affidavit filed by the Government in the writ petition, they have stated that an enquiry was pending against the 5th respondent and it was therefore not desirable to appoint him to the office of village munsif. From the orders it does not however, appear this that fact was taken into consideration by the appointing authority or the appellants or the revisional authority while making the selection, I hold that the fact that the enquiry was held and a report was submitted against the 5th respondent had no bearing on the selection of the appellant by all the lower Tribunals. Consequently, there if no question of furnishing the 5th respondent with a copy of the report, or calling for his explanation I, therefore, disagree with the learned single Judge on this aspect also.

In the result, I would set aside the order of the learned singe Judge in W.P. No. 6053 of 1973 and would dismiss the Writ Petition.

Per Vimadalal, J.

I agree and have nothing to add.

We allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Judge and dismiss the Writ Petition. In the circumstances of the case, we however, make no order as to costs of the appeal. Advocate''s fee Rs. 100. At this stage, an oral application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court is made on behalf of the 5th respondent to this appeal. In our opinion, this is clearly not a case in which any substantial question of law or of general public importance, which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, could be said to arise. We, therefore, decline to grant the certificate applied for.