N RAMA RAO Vs. TAHSILDAR NAGAMANGALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions were hereditary Shanbhogues or Village Accountants working in various villages of Mandya District. They were continued in office by virtue of sub-sec. (2) of S.16 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act of 1964. They are sought to be replaced and relieved from their posts by various persons appointed by the Deputy Commissioner and by orders of postings, subsequently made by the Tahsildars of various Taluks, to the different villages where the petitioner have been working. They impugn the validity of these orders.

(2.) It is not disputed on behalf of the respondent State Government that actual orders of posting were made by the Tahsildars themselves. The pattern of posting adopted by the Deputy Commissioner was to make appointments himself, distribute his appointees between various taluks by allocating named persons in respect of specified Taluks and then direct the Tahsildars of the Taluks to make postings.

(3.) Now, S.16 of the Land Revenue Act of 1964 reads as follows: