K M DURAISWAMI REDDIAR Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF SOUTH ARCOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in a suit brought by him for a declaration that he is the legal holder of the office of village headman in a Government village and that the appointment of the second defendant in pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue is illegal and for restraining the Government and the second defendant from interfering with his enjoyment of the office.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. When the vacancy to the office occurred, the plaintiff was actually doing the work as a deputy. The second defendant is the son of a former dismissed occupant of the office and a cousin of the last actual holder of it. Both the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector held that the plaintiff had a better claim to the office and the plaintiff was accordingly appointed and entered upon the duties of the office. I am informed that he is still the incumbent of the office getting the work done through a deputy. Against the Collector's order, the second defendant preferred what was called a second appeal to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue passed an order, Ex. D, to the effect that it was in accordance with the spirit, if not with the letter of the Act, that the second defendant's claims should be preferred to those of the plaintiff who, if not an absolute stranger, had very much weaker connection with the office. The Board proceeded to make a reference to the plaintiff as one not likely to do the work himself and observed: The Board does not want a man of the plaintiff's type and considers it equitable to appoint the second defendant to the office.

(3.) The second defendant was accordingly appointed.