G ANANTAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1972-1-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 18,1972

G.ANANTAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Madhava Reddy, J. - (1.) The appellant waS appointed as a Village Munsif on 20th January, 1965 in a leave vacancy of the permanent incumbent. Later, the permanent incumbent having died, he was appointed temporarily in the said vacancy on 23rd January, 1968. While he was continuing as such, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969 cam." into force. The Government, in its Memorandum No. 4123-H/69-3, Revenue Department, dated 3rd April, 1970 while rejecting the revision petition filed by the appellant herein (G. Anantaiah), directed the Collector to instruct the Sub-Collector to fill up the post permanently after inviting applications as required under the aforesaid Rules. It is this order of the Government that is called in question on the ground that the appellant has all the qualifications prescribed by rule 10 of the said Rules to hold the post of the village munsif and that he, having been appointed prior to the commencement of these Rules, would be deemed to continue in office and consequently no applications can be called for making a fresh appointment. Our learned brother ,GopalRao Ekbote, J., has rejected this contention and dismissed the writ petition (W.P. No. 1449 of 1970) against which the petitioner (appellant herein) has come up in appeal.
(2.) Mr. Jeevan Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant, argues that, having regard to sub-rule (4) of rule 10, even though the appointment of the appellant was temporary, since he is qualified in accordance with sub-rules (a) and (3) of rule 10 he would be deemed to have been appointed under these Rules permanently. Sub-rule (4) of rule 10 reads as follows : " All appointments already made to village offices before these rules came into force shall be deemed to have been made under these rules provided the incumbents are qualified in accordance with sub-rules(2) and (3). From a reading of the above sub-rule it is clear that the sub-rule refers to " all appointments" that is, both permanent appointments and temporary appointments. While that sub-rule declares that all appointments made prior to the commencement of the rules, to fill up temporary or short Vacancies or permanent Vacancies, whether temporarily or permanently, shall be deemed to have been made under the Rules; it does not further lay down that, where such appointment is temporary, if such appointee is qualified in accordance with sub-rules (2) and (3), he would be deemed to have been appointed permanently In short, while sub-rule (4) continues the appointments made prior to the commencement of the Rules even after this commencement, provided the incumbent is qualified, it does not alter the nature of his appointment from that a temporary appointee to that of a permanent appointee.
(3.) It was, however, argued by Mr. Jeevan Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant, that there was 310 necessity for making a provision in regard to a permanent appointee to continue him after the Rules, if he was qualified to hold the post in accordance with sub rules (2) and (3), and, therefore, it must only refer to temporary appointees. Even assuming that it applies only to temporary appointees, all that the sub- rule says is that they would be deemed to have been appointed under the Rules and not that they would be deemed to have been appointed under the Rules, permanently. The learned Counsel points out that, if the continuance of these appointees were to be temporary, sub-rule (4) would have found a place n rule 7 and not in rule 10. Temporary appointments under rule 7 could be made only after the commencement of the Rules to fill up a short vacancy, emergently. Rule 7 has only prospective operation. That apart, sub-rule (4), in our view, properly finds a place in rule 10, for in making permanent appointments in accordance with rule 10, there would be necessarily some time-lag. For carrying on the work during this interregnum period, the continuance of temporary appointees was evidently considered necessary, but in so continuing, the Government thought it advisable to continue only such of those persons who are qualified in accordance with sub- rules (2) and (3) and not others. However, under sub-rule (4) of rule 10, the temporary appointees possessing the requisite qualifications were not given a permanent status specifically, nor does that follow by necessary implication. The effect of sub-rule (4) is not to transform temporary appointments into permanent appointments.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.