http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: D. NAGARAJA ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1977

BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1977 AIR  876            1977 SCR  (2) 626  1977 SCC  (2) 148  CITATOR INFO :  F          1978 SC  28  (1)

ACT:         Constitution  of India--Article 226--Who can  apply--Whether         existence  a  right essential--Mysore Village  Offices  ,Act         1908--Mysore  Village  Offices Abolition Act 1961.         Karnataka  General  Services  (Revenue  Subordinate  Branch)         Village Accountants (Recruitment) Rules, 1970.

HEADNOTE:         The  appellants held the post of Shambhogues  on  hereditary         basis under the Mysore Village Offices Act 1908.  This Court         in the case of  Gowla  Dasrath Ramarao held that a law which         recognises  the custom by which a preferential right  to  an         office vested in the members of a particular family was  not         consistant with the fundamental right guaranteed by  Article         16  of  the   Constitution and that  the  Madras  Hereditary         Village Offices Act of 1895 in so far as it made discrimina-         tion on the ground of descent only was violative of  Article         16(2) of the Constitution and, therefore, void.  With a view         to  give effect to the  said judgment of this  Court  Mysore         Village  Offices Abolition Act  of  1961  was enacted  abol-         ishing  all  the hereditary Village Offices  including   the         office  of Shambhogues or Village Accountants created  under         the  Mysore Villages Offices Act 1908.  The  President  gave         his  assent to the said  Act.  Thereafter,  the Governor  of         Mysore  framed Mysore General Services (Revenue  Subordinate         Branch)  Village Accountants (Cadre and Recruitment)  Rules,         1961, to regulate the recruitment, pay and other  conditions         of service of Village Accountants.  Rule 10 provided for the         initial recruitment to  the  post of Village Accountants  to         be made from amongst persons holding posts of Village  Offi-         cers  on  the date of commencement of those  rules  provided         they  fulfilled certain educational qualifications and  were         below a certain  age Challenge to the constitutional validi-         ty  of the said Act was negatived by this Court in the  case         of B.R. Shankaranarayana & Ors. v. State of Mysore AIR. 1966         S.C.   1571.   The State Legislature enacted  the  Karnataka         Land  Revenue Act 1964 Section 16 of the said  Act  provides         for the appointment of Village Accountants and the  continu-         ance  of Village Accountants hold the said post  immediately

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

       before the commencement of the Act.  Section 16(e)  provides         that  persons holding the office of the  Village  Accountant         before  the  commencement of the Act shall be deemed  to  be         village  Accountants for such villages till  other   persons         were  appointed.  The 1961 rules were repealed and  replaced         by  Karnataka General Services (Revenue Subordinate  Branch)         Village   Accountants  (Recruitment) Rules. 1970.   Rules  4         and  5 lay down the eligibility of the persons for  the  ap-         pointment  as Village Accountant .and the constitution of  a         Committee   for selection and the method of selection.   The         Recruitment  Committee invited applications, interviewed the         applicants who were eligible and prepared a list of selected         Candidates and, thereafter, issued the order of appointment.         As  the appellants had to give up their posts in consequence         of the fresh appointments they filed the present writ  peti-         tions  impugning the validity of rules 4 and 5 of  the  1970         Rules on the ground that they were violative of Articles  14         and 16 of the Constitution and challenging the selection and         appointment  of   respondents Nos. 3 to 191 as  Village  Ac-         countants and for a direction that they should be  continued         as  Village Accountants. The High Court dismissed  the  writ         petitions.         Dismissing the appeals,            HELD: 1. Though Article 226 of the Constitution in  terms         does not describe the classes of  persons entitled to  apply         thereunder,  the  existence  of the right  is  implicit  for         invoking  the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction  by         the  High  Court under the said Article. It is  well  estab-         lished that a person who         627         is not aggrieved by the discrimination complained of  cannot         maintain  a  writ petition.  The constitutional validity  of         the Abolition Act abolishing all hereditary Village  Offices         having been upheld by this Court, the appellants who did not         apply for appointment as Village Accountants in response  to         the  notification inviting applications, since they did  not         possess the. prescribed  qualifications, could not  complain         of  the  unconstitutionality  of the 1972 Rules  or  of  the         infringement  of  Articles 14 and 16 of  the   Constitution.         The   High  Court, therefore, was right in holding that  the         appellants  have  no right to maintain the  writ  petitions.         [631 E-H 632 A]

JUDGMENT:             CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal   No.   883         and 898-905/75.             Appeals  by Special Leave from the: Judgment  and  Order         dated  20-2-75 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ  Petition         Nos.  5825/74 and 5818, 5820, 5821, 5822, 5823,  5824,  5828         and 5829 of 1974.         R.B. Datar for the Appellants in all the appeals.         V.P. Raman, Addl. Sol. Genl (In CA 883/75) and N. Nettar for         RR 1 and 2 in all the appeals.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by            JASWANT SINGH J.  This judgment shall dispose of  Appeals         Nos. 883 and 898 to 905 of 1975 which are, directed  against         the  common  judgment dated February 20, 1975  of  the  High         Court  of Karnataka at Bangalore dismissing  writ  petitions         Nos.  5825, 5818, 5820, 5822 to 5824, 5828 and 5829 of  1974         on  the ground that the appellants had no right to  maintain         the same.             The  circumstances leading to ’these appeals  are:   The         appellants held the posts of Shambogues on hereditary  basis

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

       under  the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908.  In writ  peti-         tion  No. 133 of 1959 entitled Gazula Daseratha Rama Rao  v.         State  of A.P. & Ors. (1) decided on December 6, 1960,  this         Court held that a law which recognised the custom by which a         preferential right to, an office vested in the members of  a         particular  family was not consistent with  the  fundamental         right guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution; that   a         custom  which is recognised by law with regard to a  heredi-         tary  office must yield to a fundamental  right  and_section         6(1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act/II of 1895         in so far as it made discrimination on the ground of descent         only  was violative of the’ fundamental right under  Article         16(2)  of  the Constitution and was void..  With a  view  to         giving effect to tile principle settled by  this   decision,         the Legislature of the. then State of Mysore comprising  the         territories  the  erstwhile States of Mysore and  Coorg  and         certain  parts of the erstwhile Stales of Bombay,  Hyderabad         and  Madras  enacted  the Mysore Village  Offices  Abolition         Act,  1961 (Act  XIV  of 1961) (hereinafter referred  to  as         ’the Abolition Act’) abolishing  all  the hereditary village         offices  including  the office of Shambogue or  village  Ac-         countant  created  under the Mysore  Village  Offices   Act,         1908. Pursuant to sub-section (3) of section 1 which  autho-         rise.d the State Government to fix a date for the  commence-         ment of the  Act,  the Government of Mysore issued a notifi-         cation  on January 9, 1963 notifying that the Abolition  Act         would come into force with effect from February 1, 1963.             (1) [1961] 2 S.C.R. 931=A.I.R. 1961 S C. 564.             6--112 SCI/77         628             Shortly after the according of the assent to the  Aboli-         tion  Act by the President on July 8, 1961, the Governor  of         Mysore  flamed  rules  called  the  Mysore  General  Service         (Revenue   Subordinate  Branch) Village  Accountants  (Cadre         and  Recruitment)  Rules,  1961 in exercise  of  the  powers         vested  in him under the proviso to Article 309 of the  Con-         stitution  and  other powers enabling him  in  that  behalf.         These  Rules, as evident from their title, were designed  to         regulate the recruitment, pay and other conditions of  serv-         ice of Village Accountants. Rule 10 of the 1961 Rules  which         was  in the nature of a non obstante provision provided  for         the initial recruitment to the posts of Village  Accountants         to be made from amongst persons holding the posts of village         officers on the date of commencement of those Rules provided         that such persons had passed the  S.S.L.C.  examination   or         an  equivalent examination and their age did not  exceed  40         years  on the said date.  By a proviso which was  introduced         in  the  year, 1963, it was provided that in  the  event  of         persons  satisfying the qualifications mentioned in  Rule  7         not  being  available  even after the  vacancies  are  twice         advertised,  the  recruitment should be  made  from  amongst         persons  holding the posts of village officers who were  not         more than 50 years of age on the date of commencement of the         said Rules and who had passed the Lower Secondary or Vernac-         ular Final or equivalent examination.             By a notification issued on January 6, 1963, the Govern-         ment  of Mysore directed the Deputy Commissioners to appoint         persons  recruited under the 1961 Rules as village  account-         ants   and relieve  the  then holders of their offices.   On         the  issue  of the  aforesaid notification dated January  9,         1963,  a number of writ petitions under Article 226  of  the         Constitution  were filed in the High Court  challenging  the         legality and constitutional validity of the Abolition Act on         the  ground that it was a piece of  colourable  legislation.         During  the  pendency of  the writ petitions, an  ad-interim

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

       order  staying the operation of the  aforesaid  Notification         dated  January 9, 1963 was issued by the High Court.   As  a         consequence  of the stay order, the appellants and a  number         of  other persons who were holding tile posts of  Shambogues         under   the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908 had to be  con-         tinued by the  State Government in the posts held by   them.         The  writ  petitions  were eventually dismissed by the  High         Court  by  its  judgment dated December 9,  1963  which  was         confirmed  by this Court  vide its  judgment  dated  January         21,  1966 rendered in B.R. Shankaranarayana & Ors. v.  State         of  Mysore(1).   Thus  the constitutional  validity  of  the         Abolition  Act was finally upheld by the Court.  During  the         pendency  of  the appeals against the judgment of  the  High         Court dated December  9, 1963, the State Legislature enacted         the  Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter  referred         to  as  ’the Act’) which came into force on April  1,  1964.         Section  16 of the Act provides for the appointment of  Vil-         lage Accountants and the continuance of village  accountants         hold  the said posts immediately before the commencement  of         the  Act.  Sub-section  (1) of section 16  lays  down  that,         subject  to the general orders of the State  Government  and         the  Divisional  Commissioner, the Deputy  Commissioner  can         appoint  Village Accountants for villages or groups of  vil-         lages.  Sub-section (2) of section 16  provides that the         (1) A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1571.         629         persons holding the office of the Village Accountant  before         the  commencement of the Act, shall be deemed to be  Village         Accountants  for  such villages till another person  is  ap-         pointed  under  sub-section (1 ) of section 16.   Thus  sub-         section (2) of section 16, it would be seen, was designed to         cover  the  case of the persons  who had   perforce   to  be         continued as Shambogues because of the aforesaid stay  order         issued  by  the High Court despite the  abolition  of  those         posts by the Abolition Act.             The  1961 Rules were repealed and  replaced  by  another         set  of Rules called the Karnataka General Services   (Reve-         nue.  Subordinate Branch) Village Accountants  (Recruitment)         Rules, 1970  (hereafter referred to as the 1970 Rules)  made         by the State  Government in exercise of the powers conferred         by  sections   16 and  17 of the Act. Rules 4 and 5  of  the         1970  Rules which were amended from time to. time  stood  as         follows on the relevant date :--                           "4.  Recruitment. (1) Recruitment  to  the                       cadre of village Accountant shah be  made   by                       direct  recruitment  from amongst :--                       (i)  persons who have served as Village  Offi-                       cers;                       (ii)  local candidates whether in  service  or                       not, who have put in a total of not less  than                       one  year of service as on 1st January,  1970,                       if  sufficient number of eligible persons  are                       not available under (i);                       (ii) persons who have been regularly recruited                       as   Panchayat Secretaries in accordance  with                       the   rules  in force at the time of  the  re-                       cruitment and working as Panchayat Secretaries                       who  have passed the S.S.L.C.  examination  or                       any other  examination declared as  equivalent                       thereto by the State Government if  sufficient                       number of eligible persons are  not  available                       under (ia) ;                       (iii) persons who are regularly  recruited  as                       Panchayat  Secretaries in accordance with  the                       rules  in   force at the time  of  recruitment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

                     and  working as Panchayat Secretaries who--                       (a) have passed the Middle School  examination                       or any other examination declared as   equiva-                       lent thereto by the State Government; and                       (b)  have  put in not less than  10  years  of                       service  as Panchayat Secretaries as the  case                       may  be  if  sufficient  number  of   eligible                       persons  are  not available under (ii);                       630                       (c) are not more than 50 years of  age  as  on                       1st April, 1967;                       (iv) xx         xx         xx                       (v)  others, if sufficient number  of  persons                       are  not  available  under any  of  the  above                       categories.                          (2)  No  persons  other  than  the  persons                       referred   to in categories (ii) and (iii)  of                       sub-rule  (1) "shall be eligible for  appoint-                       ment under these rules unless  he has   passed                       the  S.S.L.C. examination or  any  examination                       declared  by  State Government  as  equivalent                       thereto.                           (3)  The limit for appointment under  sub-                       rule (1) shall be-                           (i)  33  years  in the case  of  a  person                       belonging   to any of the Scheduled Castes  or                       Scheduled Tribes; and                        (ii)  28 years in  the case of  others as  on                       1st January, 1970.                           Provided  that in the case of  person  who                       have served as Village Officer or as Panchayat                       Secretary  such  age as on  1st  April,  1967,                       shall not exceed 50 years.                           Provided further that in the case of local                       candidates, such age shall be as on 1st  Janu-                       ary, 1965:                           Explanation--For  the  purpose   of   this                       rule "ViIIage Officer" means a person who held                       a  ’Village  Office’ other  than  in  inferior                       village  office  as defined in  the  Karnataka                       Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (Karnataka                       Act 14 of 1961)."                           "5.  Committee  for  selection--(1)  There                       shall   be   a  Committee  for  each  district                       consisting  of the Deputy Commissioner of  the                       District, the Assistant Commissioner, shall be                       the  Chairman of the Committee and one of  the                       members appointed by  the  Deputy  Commission-                       er shall  be  the Secretary.                           (2) The Committee shall call for  applica-                       tion  for appointment as  village  Accountants                       and  make  selection  in  the manner laid down                       in  the  Mysore State Civil  Services  (Direct                       Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1967.                           (3) The decision of the Committee shall be                       final subject to the approval of the Division-                       al Commissioner.                           (4)  The list approved by  the  Divisional                       Commissioner  shall be published and  appoint-                       ments  shall  be made in order  in  which  the                       names of persons selected are arranged in  the                       said list."         631             Pursuant  to the 1970 Rules, applications  were  invited         by   the Recruitment Committee in the year, 1972 to fill  up

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

       the   posts  of Village Accountants in the District of  Has-         san.   After  sorting out the applications received  in  re-         sponse  to  the: advertisement,  the  Committee  interviewed         the  applicants  who.  were eligible  for   appointment  and         prepared a list of the  selected  candidates for appointment         as  Village Accountants.  This list was quashed by the  High         Court  by its judgment dated  November 19,   1972   rendered         in   writ  petition No. 1871 of 11972 entitled Komari  Gowda         v.  State of Mysore &  Ors. and the Committee was  directed.         to   select the  candidates  afresh in accordance with  law.         Consequently  the Committee again interviewed  the  eligible         candidates and prepared a fresh list of the selected  candi-         dates  which was published in the Karnataka Gazette  on  May         30,  1974.  Thereafter, the   Deputy  Commissioner,’  Hassan         issued   orders  of appointment of the candidates  who  were         selected  by the Recruitment Committee.  Some of the  candi-         dates   thus selected  were  posted as  Village  Accountants         under section 16(2) of the Act to the villages in which  the         appellants were functioning.  As the. appellants had to give         up  their  posts  in consequence. of  the   aforesaid  fresh         appointments under section 16(2) of the Act, they filed  the         aforesaid writ petitions impugning (i) the validity of rules         4  and  5  of the 1970 Rules on the ground  that  they  were         violative  of Articles 14 and 16 of the  Constitution,  (ii)         the  selection and appointment of respondents 3 to  191   as         Village  Accountants and praying that a writ of mandamus  be         issued  directing  respondents 1 and 2 to continue  them  as         Village   Accountants under section 16(2) of the  Act.   The         writ  petitions having been dismissed by the High  Court  as         stated  above.,  the appellants  have come up in  appeal  to         this Court.             The  sole  question that requires to  be  determined  in         these appeals is whether the appellants could maintain  that         aforesaid  writ  petitions. It is well settled  that  though         Article  226 of the Constitution in terms does not  describe         the  classes  of persons entitled to apply  thereunder,  the         existence of the right is implicit for  the exercise of  the         extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court under the  said         Article.   It is also well established that a person who  is         not  aggrieved  by the discrimination complained  of  cannot         maintain  a writ petition.  The constitutional  validity  of         the Abolition Act abolishing all hereditary village  offices         including the office of the Shambogue or  Village Accountant         having  been upheld by this Court in B.R.  Shankanarayana  &         Ors. v. State of Mysore (supra), and the first preference in         the matter of appointment of Village Accountants having been         given by Rule 4 of the 1970 Rules to all persons.  belonging         to  the category and class of the appellants who had  served         as  Village Officers, the appellants who did not  apply  for         appointment as Village Accountants in response to the afore-         said  notification issued by the Recruitment Committee   and         did  not  possess the prescribed  qualification,  could  not         complain of the unconstitutionality of the 1970 Rules or  of         the  infringement of, Articles 4 and 16 of the  Constitution         which  merely forbid improper or  invidious distinctions  by         conferring  rights  or privileges upon a  class  of  persons         arbitrarily selected from  out of a larger  group  who.  are         similarly  circumstanced but do not exclude the laying  down         of  selective tests nor prevent the Government  from  laying         general educational         632         qualifications  for  the post in question.  The  High  Court         was, therefore, right in holding that the appellants have no         right to maintain the aforesaid writ petitions.  The appeals         accordingly  fail  and  are dismissed but without any  order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

       as to costs.         P.H.P.                                               Appeals         dismissed.         633