GAZULA DASARATHA RAMA RAO versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERS

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

under appeal has already been filed by the respon-dents before the High Court on December 23, 1959, the High Court should now proceed to hear the appe,al on the merits and deal with it in accordance with law. In the circumstances of this case we make no order as to costs.

Jagat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhartava Others Gajendragadlrar],

Appeal dismissed.

GAZULA DASARATHA RAMA RAO

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PR.ADESH & OTHERS (S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)

Village Offices-Village Munsij-Enactment providing for selection of post according to heredity-Constitutionality-Madras Hereditary V illage-Offtces Act, I895 (3 of I895), s. 6(1)-Constitu-tion of India, Art, r6(I}(z).

Yillage P in the State of Andhra Pradesh was originally comprised of village of the same name and fairly large hamlet called PP, but in view of the difficulties in the two being treated as one unit for purposes of village administration the Board of Revenue sanctioned the bifurcation of P into two villages, P and PP. On the division of the village all the hereditary village offices of the original village ceased to exist under s. 6(1) of the Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895, and new offices were created for the two villages. The section provided, inter alia, that "in choosing persons to fill such new offices the Collector shall select the persons w horn he may con-sider the best qualified from among the families of the last holders of the offices which have been abolished." Though 'applications for the post of Village Munsif of PP had been invited by the Revenue authorities and the petitioner among others had made the application, respondent 4 who was the son of the Village Munsif of the old village, P, was selected on the ground that in view of s. 6(1) of the Act, as the last holder of the office was appointed to the new village, P, after bifurcation, respondent 4 as the son of the last holder and nearest heir had preferential claim for the post of Village Munsif for PP. The petitioner challenged the validity of the order of the Revenue authorities on the grounds (1) that the office of Village Munsif was an office under the State, and that the order in favour of

respo.ndent 4 which expressly stated that they proceeded on the basis of the hereditary principle laid down ins. 6(1) of the Act, discriminated against him as citizen on on the ground of descent only an.d violated the guarantee of equal opportunity enshrined in Art. r6 of the Constitution of India, and (2) thats. 6(r) of the Act, to the extent that it permitted such discrimination was void under Art. 13(1) of the Constitution. The plea of the respondents was (1) that the expression "office under the State" in Art. 16 had no reference to an office hke that of the Village Munsif whicl/ in its origin was customary village office later recognised and regulated by law, and (2) that Art. 16 did not apply to hereditary office because person entitled to it under the Act had pre-existing right to the office and its emoluments which could be enforced by suit.

Garula Dasa,atha discriminated against him as citizen on on the ground of descent

Rama Rao v. Th• State of

Andhra Pradesh void under Art. 13(1) of the Constitution. The plea of the

& Others

Held: (r) that village office like that of the Village Munsif was an office under the State within the meaning of Art. 16 of the Constitution of India;

M. Ramappa v. Sangappa and others, [1959] S. C.R. n67, referred to.

(2) that person entitled to an office under s. 6(r) of the Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895, did not have any pre,existing right to property in the shape of emoluments of the office, independent or irrespective of the office, and consequently to such an office Art. r6 applied; and,

(3) that s. 6(r) of the Act embodied principle of discrimi-

nation on the ground of descent only and was in contravention of Art. 16(2) of the Constitution.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 133 of 1959.

Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioner.

D. Narasa Raju, AdiJocate-General of Andhra Pra-desh, D. Venkatappayya Sastri and T. ¥· Sen, for respondents Nos. 1-3.

T. V. R. Tatachari, for respondent No. 4.

1960. December 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. K. DAS, J.-This is 11. writ petition under Art. 32

s. K. Das J.

of the Constitution. Gazula Dasaratha Rama. Rao is the petitioner. The respondents a.re ( 1) the State of Andhra Pradesh, (2) the Boa.rd of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, (3) the Collector of Guntur in Andhra Pra-desh a.nd (4) Vishnu Molakala. Chandramowleshwara

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Rao. The petitioner prays that this Court must de-z96o clare s. 6 of the MadrasfHeredithary Yillfage-Officeds Act, Gazula Dasaratha 1895 (Madras Act III o 1895), erema ter calle the· Rama Rao Act, as void in so far as it infringes the fundamental v. right of the petitioner under Arts. 14 and 16 of the The State of Constitution, and further asks for an appropriate writ Andhra Pradesh or direction quashing certain orders passed by respon-& Others dents 1 to 3 in favour of respondent No. 4 in the S. K. Das]. matter of the latter's appointment as Village Munsif of newly constituted village ·called Peravalipalem. When this petition first came up for hearing we direc-ted notice to go to other States of the Union inas-much as the question raised as to the constitutional validity of the law relating to hereditary village office was of general nature and might arise in rela-tion to the existing laws in force in other States. Ex-cept the State of Andhra Pradesh which has entered appearance through its Advocate-General, none of the other States have entered appearance. The Advocate-General of Andhra Pradesh has appeared for respon-dents 1 to 3, and respondent 4 has been separately represented before us. These respondents have con-tested the application and have pleaded that s. 6 of the Act does not violate any fundamental right, nor are the impugned orders of respondents 1 to 3 invalid in law.

The short facts are these: Village Peravali in Tenali taluq of the district of Guntur in the State of Andhra Pradesh was originally comprised of village of the same name and fairly large hamlet called Peravali-palem. The two were divided by big drainage channel. It is stated that for purposes of village administration the villagers felt some difficulties in the two being treated as one unit. So the villagers, particularly those of the hamlet, put in an application to the Revenue authorities for constituting the .ham-let into separate village. This application was re-commended by the Tehsildar and was accepted by the Board of Revenue and the State Government. By an order dated August 25, 1956, Peravali village was bifurcated and two villages were constituted. The us

order was published in the District Gazette on October

l5, 1956, and was in these terms: I [-]"'" Rama Dasarat Rao "Th oar sane ions t" th b"fu l rca ion o t" p erava Ii v. village of Tenali taluq, Guntur district, into two villa.-Th• State of ges, viz., (1) Peravali and (2) Peravalipalem along the Andhra Pradesh boundary line shown in the map submitted by the 0- Others Collector of Guntur with his letter Re. A. 4. 28150/55 dated 30th June, 1956. These orders will come into s. K. Das]. bl · · effect from the date o pu icat10n m t District Gazette.

2. The Board sanctions the following establish-ments on the existing scale of pay for the two villa-ges:

Peravali:-

1 Village Munsif.

1 Karnam.

1 Talayari.

3 Vettians.

Peravalipalem:-

1 Village Munsif.

1 Karnam.

1 Talayari.

1 V ettian."

It is convenient to read at this stage sub-s. (1) of s. 6

of the Act under which the bifurcation was made:

"S. 6(1). In any local area in which this Act is

in force the Board of Revenue may, subject to rules made in this behalf under section 20, group or amalga-mate any two or more villages or portions thereof so as to form single new village or aivide any village into two or more villages and, thereupon, all heredi-tary village offices (of the classes defined in section 3, clause ( 1 ), of this Act) in the villages or portions of villages or village grouped, amalgamated or divided as aforesaid, shall cease to exist and new offices, which shall also be hereditary shall be created for the new village or villages. In choosing persons to fill such new offices, the Collector shall select the persons whom he may consider the best qualified from among the families of the last holders of the offices which have been abolished."

On the division of the village into two villages, '[960 ]all the hereditary village offices of the original vil- Gazula -;;;saratha lage ceased to exist under the aforesaid sub-sec-Rama Rao tion, and new offices were created for the two v. villages. We are concerned in this case with the The State of appointment to the office of Villa0cre Munsif in the Andhra & Othe1·s Pradesh newly constituted village of Peravalipalem. In accor-dance with the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 6 and s. K. Das .f. certain Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, invited applica-tions for the post of Village Munsif of Peravalipalem. Eight applications were made including one by the petitioner and another by respondent 4. Respondent 4, be it noted, is son of the Village Munsif of the old village Peravali. By an order dated October, 18, 1956, the Revenue Divisional Officer, appointed the petitioner as Village Munsif of Peravalipalem. From the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, respon-dent 4 and some of the other unsuccessful applicants preferred appeals to respondent 3, the Collector of Guntur. By an order dated April 1, 1957, respondent 3 allowed the appeal of respondent 4 and appointed him as Village 1\fonsif of Peravalipalem. In his order respondent 3 said: "Shri V. Chandram.owleswara Rao is qualified for the post. He is the son of the present Village Munsif of Peravali and is, therefore, heir to that post ...... S. 6(1) of the Hereditary Village Offices Act states that in choosing person to fill new office of this kind the Collector shall select the person whom he may consider best qualified from among the family of the last holder of the office which has been abolish-ed. The Village Munsif's post of the undivided village of Peravali was abolished when the village was divid-ed and the new post of Village Munsif of Peravali-palem has to be filled up from among the family of the previous Village Munsif. The same instructions are contained in Board's Standing Order 148(2)."

The petitioner then carried an appeal from the order of respondent 3 to the Board of. Revenue. By an order dated April 24, 1958, the Board dismissed the appeal and stated:

"According to s. 6, in choosing the person to fill

1960 in new office like this, the Collect.or shall select the -person whom he considers best qualified from among Gazula Dasaratha the families of the the last holders of the office, which the office, which office, which Rama v. Rao ave een 1. ors ed. Here the office the office office of the Village . The state of Munsif was abolished and two new offices have been Andhra Pradesh created. As the last holder of the office was appointed & Others to the new village, Peravali, after bifurcation, the Collector has appointed the son of the last office holder 5· K. Das J. as Village Munsif of Peravalipalem as he is the nearest heir. The appellant before the Board cannot claim any preference over the son of the last office holder. The Board, therefore, holds that the Collec. tor's order is in accordance with the law on the sub. ject. No interference, is, therefore, called for."

-person whom he considers best qualified from among Gazula Dasaratha the families of the the last holders of the office, which the office, which office, which Rama v. Rao ave een 1. ors ed. Here the office the office office of the Village .

The petitioner then moved respondent l, but with-out success. Thereafter, he filed the present writ petition.

The petitioner relies mainly on clauses (1) and (2) of Art. 16 of the Constitution. We may read those clauses here:

"Art. 16(1).

There shall be equality of opportu-of opportu-opportu-

"Art. 16(1). There shall be equality of opportu-of opportu-opportu-nity for all citizens in matters relating to employment for all citizens in matters relating to employment matters relating to employment relating to employment to employment employment or ppointmeut to any office under the State: ppointmeut to any office under the State: ppointmeut to any office under the State: to any office under the State: any office under the State: office under the State: the State: State: (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or Iany of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against . in respect of, any employment or office under tho State.''

nity for all citizens in matters relating to employment for all citizens in matters relating to employment matters relating to employment relating to employment to employment employment or ppointmeut to any office under the State: ppointmeut to any office under the State: ppointmeut to any office under the State: to any office under the State: any office under the State: office under the State: the State: State:

On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that (1) the office of Village Munsif of Peravalipalem is an office under the State, and (2) respondents l to 3 in passing their orders in favour of respondent 4 ex-pressly stated that they proceeded on the basis of the hereditary principle laid down in s. 6(1) of the Act and discriminated against him as citizen on the ground of descent only. This discrimination, it is argued, violates the guarantee of equal opportunity enshrined in Art. 16, els. (1) and (2); ands. 6(1) of the Act to the extent that it permits such discrimination is void under Art. 13(1) of the Constitution.

The first question before us is if the office of Village

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Munsif under the Act is an office under the State with-1960 · in the meaning of els. (1) and (2) of Art. 16 of the -Constitution. For determining that question it is GaziR•la DaRsaratha . . . ama ao necessary to examme t sc eme an various prov1-v. sions of the Act. The long title shows that it was an The state of Act made to repeal Madras Regulation VI of 1831 and Andhra Pradesh for other purposes. The purposes mentioned in the & Others pren.mble are-"to provide more precisely for the succession to certain hereditary village offices in the s. K. Das f. State; for the hearing and disposal of claims to such offices or the emoluments annexed thereto; for the appointment of persons to hold such offices and the control of the holders thereof; and for certain other purposes." Section 3 of the Act refers to classes of village offices to which the Act applies and Village Munsif is one of such offices. Under s. 4 "emolu-ments" of the office means and includes (i) lands; (ii) assignment of revenue payable in respect of lands; (iii) fees in money or agricultural produce; and (iv) money-salaries and all other kinds of remunera-tion granted or continued in respect of, or annexed to, any office by the State. Section 5 lays down that the emoluments of village offices, whether such offices be or be not hereditary, shall not be liable to be transfer-red or encumbered in any manner whatsoever and it shall not be lawful for any Court to attach or sell such emoluments or any portion thereof. Sub-s. (1) of s. 6 relates to the grouping or division of village$; this sub-section we have already read. Sub-s. (2) of s. 6 gives right to the Board of Revenue, subject to the approval of Government, to reduce the number of village offices, and on such reduction the Collector is empowered to dispense with the services of the officers no longer required. Sub-s. (3) of s. 6 which was subse-quently added in 1930 says that minor shall not be ineligible for selection by reason of his minority only. Section 7 states the circumstances in which the Collec-tor may, of his own motion or on complaint and after enquiry suspend, remove or dismiss, etc., some of the village officers mentioned in s. 3. similar power of punishment is also given to the Tehsildar. Under these provisions the Collector may suspend, remove

'9[60 ]or dismiss the Village Munsif. Section 10 lays down Gazula Daoaratha certain rules which are to be observed in making · Rama Rao appointments to some of the village offices and these v. rules lay down, among other things, the general Th• State of qualifications requisite for appointment to the offices Andhra Pradesh in question. For example, for the appointment to the & Othe,.-s office of Village Munsi no person is eligible unless he s. K. Das .I. has attained the age of majority, is physically and mentally capable of discharging the duties of the office, has qualified according to the educational test prescribed for the office by the Board of Revenue, has not been convicted by Criminal Court of any offence which, in the opinion of the Collector, disqualifies him for holding the office and has not been dismissed from any post under the Government on any ground which the Collector considers sufficient to disqualify him for holding the office. One of the qualifications prescribed bys. 10 as it originally stood required that the appli-cant must be of the male sex. This requirement was deleted by the Adaptation (Amendment) Order of 1950, presumably to bring the section into conformity with Arts. 15 and 16 of the Constitution which prohi-bit discrimination on the ground of sex. Sub-s. (2) of s. 10 says that the succession shall devolve on single heir according to the general custom and rule of primo-geniture governing succession to impartible zamindaris in Southern India. Sub-s. (3) of s. 10 says that where the next heir is not qualified, the Collector shall appoint the person next in order of succession, who is so qualified, and, in the absence of any such person in the line of succession, may appoint any person duly qualified. Sub-ss. (4), (5) and (6) of s. 10 deal with matters with which we are not directly con-cerned. Section 11 lays down the rules to be observed in making appointments to certain offices in proprie-tary estates and one of the rules is that succession shall devolve in accordance with the law or custom applicable to the office in question. Section 13 in effect says that any person may sue before the Collec-tor for any of the village offices specified in s. 3 or for the recovery of the emoluments of any such office on the ground that he is entitled to hold such office and

enjoy such emoluments. There are some provisos to i96o suit. the section which lay down limitations With t ose 1m1tat10ns we are no concerne 1[. . ]. on t the right ofG uzu Rama Rama asara llao llao 1 [[D ]]asara llao llao ti in the present case. Section 14 lays down the period v. of limitation for bringing suit. Sections 15, 16 and n.e State of 17 relate to the transfer and trial of such suits and Andhra Pradesh the decrees or orders to be passed therein. Section 20 o;, Otlms empowers the Board of Revenue to make rules. and S. K. Das]. s. 21 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Section 23 provides for appeals.

ti ofG 1 [[D ]]1a uzu Rama Rama asara llao llao

The above gives in brief the scheme and provisiom of the Act. These provisions show, in our opinion, that the office of Village M:unsif under the Act is an office under the State. The appointment is made by the Collector, the emoluments are granted or continu-ed by the State, the Collector has disciplinary powers over the Village M:unsif including the power to remove, suspend or dismiss him, the qualifications for appointment can be laid down by the Board of Reve-nue-all these show that the office is not private office under private employer but is an office under the State. The nature of the duties to be performed by the Village M:unsifunder different provisions of the law empowering him in that behalf also shows that he holds public office. He not only aids in collecting the revenue but exercises power of magistrate and of Civil Judge in petty cases. He has also certain police duties as to repressing and informing about crime, etc.The learned Advocate-General appearing for res~ pondents 1 to 3 has contended that the expression "office under the State" in Art. 16 has no reference to an office like that of the Village M:unsif, which in its origin was customary village office later recognis-ed and regulated by law. His contention is that the expression has reference to post in Civil Service and an ex-cadre post under contract of service, as are referred to in Arts. 309 and 310 in Part XIV of the Constitution relating to the Services under the Union and the States. He has referred in support of his contention to Ilbert's Supplement to the Govern-ment of India Act, 1915, p. 261, where similar

'9[60 ]provision with regard to the Indian Civil Service has Gazula Dasarntha been referred to as laying down that "no native of ·Rama Rao British India ........... .is by reason only of his religion, v. place of birth, descent, or colour, or any of them The State of disabled from holding any place, office or employment Andhta Pradesh under His Majesty in India" and has pointed out that &· Others the aforesaid provision reproduced s. 87 of the Act of s. K. Das J. 1833 and historically the office to which the provision related was .an office or employment in Service directly under the East India Company or the Crown. He also referred to s. 298 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which said inter alia that "no subject of His Majesty domiciled in India shall on grounds only of religion, place of birth, descent, colour or any of them be ineligible for office under the Crown in India." The argument of the learned Advocate-General is that Art. 16 embodies the same principle aB inspired the earlier provisions referred to above, and like the earlier provisions it should be confined to an office or post in an organised public Service or an ex-cadre post under contract of service directly under the Union or the State. He has further suggested that the deletion of the requirement as to sex ins. 10 of the Act was by reason of Art. 15 and not Art. 16 of the Constitution. The argument is plausible, but on careful consideration we are unable to accept it as correct. Even if we assume for the purpose of argu-ment that Arts. 309 and 310 and other Articles in Chapter I, Part XIV, of the Constitution relate only to an organised public Service like the Indian Adminis-trative Service, etc., and ex-cadre posts under direct contract of service which have not yet been incorporat-ed into Service, we do not think that the scope and effect of els. (1) and (2) of Art. 16 can be cut down by reference to the provisions in the Services Chapter of the Constitution.

Article 14 enshrines the fundamental right of equality before the law or the eqlial protection of the laws within the territory of India. It is available to all, irrespective of whether the person claiming it is a. citizen or not. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on some special grounds-religion, race, caste, sex, place

of birth or any of them. It is available to citizens x96o only, but is not restricted to . any employment or office . azu 1 [[-D ]]asara ·th under the State. Artwle 16, cl. (1), guarantees equality Rama Rao of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to v. employment or appointment to any office under the The State of State; and cl. (2) prohibits discrimination on certain Andhra Pradesh grounds in respect of any such employment or appoint-Q;. Others ment. It would thus appear that Art. 14 guarantees s. K~s J. the general right of equality; Arts. 15 and 16 are instances of the same right in !favour of citizens in some special circumstances. Article 15 is more general than Art. 16, the latter being confined to matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. It is also worthy of note that Art. 15 does not mention 'descent' as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination, whereas Art. 16 does. We do not see any reason why the full ambit of the funda-mental right guaranteed by Art. 16 in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State should be cut down by reference to the provi-sions in Part XIV of the Constitution which relate to Services or to provisions in the earlier Constitution Acts relating to the same subject. These Service pro-visions do not enshrine any fundamental right of citizens; they relate to recruitment, conditions and tenure of service of persons, citizens or otherwise, appointed to Civil Service or to posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State. The word 'State', be it noted, has differ-ant connotation in Part III relating to Fundamental Rights: it includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India, etc. Therefore, the scope and ambit of the Service provi-sions are to large extent distinct and different from the scope and ambit of the fundamental right guaranteeing to all citizens an equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The preamble to the Constitution states that one of its objects is to secure to all citizens equality of status.and opportu-nity; Art. 16 gives equality of opportunity in matters

·th azu 1 [[-D ]]asara Rama Rao

'9[[60 ]]of public employment. We think that it would be Garnla JJ;;saratha w ong in principle to cut down the amplitude of Rama Rao tundamental right by reference to provisions which v. htve an altogether different scope and purpose. The State of Article 13 of the Constitution lays down inter alia that Andht'a Pradesh c;. Others all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, in so s. K. Das J. far as they are inconsistent with fundamental rights, shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void. In that Article 'law' includes custom or usage having the force of law. Therefore, even if there was custom which has been recognised by law with re~ard to hereditary village office, that custom must yield to fundamental right. Our attention has also been drawn to cl. (4) of Art. 16 which enables the State to make provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The argument is that this clause refers to appointments or posts and further talks of inadequate representation in the services, and the learned Advocate-General has sought to restrict the scope of els. (1) and (2) of Art. 16 by reason of the provisions in cl. (4). We are not concerned in this case with the true scope and effect of cl. (4) and we express no opinion with regard to it. All that we say is that the expression 'office under the State' in els. (1) and (2) of Art. 16 must be given its natural meaning. We are unable, therefore, to accept the argument of the learned Advocate-General that the expression 'office under the State' in Art. 16 has restricted con-notation and does not include village office like that of the Village Munsif. In M. Ramappa v. Sangappa and Others (1) the question arose whether certain village offices governed by the Mysore Villages Offices Act, 1908, were offices of profit under the Government of any State within the meaning of Art. 191 of the Constitution. This Court held that the offices were offices of profit under the Government and said: "An office has to be held under someone for it is impossible to conceive of an office held under no one. (1) [19~9] S.C.R. 1167

The appointment being by the Government, the office z96o to which it is made must be held under it, for there isG no one else under w om it . can he . · ld Th earne l azu Rama Rao Rama Rao 1 [[D ]]asaratha Advocate said that the office was held under the v. village community. But such thing is an impossibi-The Stats of lity for village communities have since very long AndMa Pradesh time, ceased to have any corporate existence." a;. Others Learned Counsel for respondent 4 has presented s. K. Das J. somewhat different argument on this question. He has submitted that the office of Village Munsif is not merely an office simpliciter; but it is an office cum pro-perty. His argument is that Art. 16 does not apply to her~ditary village office because person entitled to it under the Act has pre-existing right to the office and its emoluments, which he can enforce by suit. We now proceed to consider this argument.

isG 1 [[D ]]asaratha azu Rama Rao Rama Rao v.

Learned Counsel for respondent 4 has relied on the decision of this Court in Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata .llfulliok ([1]) where it was held that in the conception of shebaiti under Hindu law, both the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest, are mixed up and blended together; and one of the elements cannot be detached from the other. He has argued that on the same analogy the office of village Munsif must be held to be an . office cum property. We do not think that the analogy holds. As this Court pointed out in Kalipada Ohakraborti and Another v. Palani Bala Devi and Others ([9]) shebaitship is property of peculiar and anomalous character and it is difficult to say that it comes under the category of immovable property as it is known to law. As to the office of Village Munsif under the Act, the provisions of the Act itself and long line of decisions make it quite clear that what go with the office are its emolu-ments, whether in the shape of land, assignment of revenue, agricultural produce, money, salary or any other kind of remuneration. These emoluments are granted or continued in respect of, or annexed to, the office by the State. This is made clear by s. 4 of the Act. Apart from the office there is no right to the emoluments. In other words, when person is appoint-(I) [19s1] S.C.R. 112s, (2) [I9S3] S.C,R. 503.

r96o ed to be "Village Munsif" it is an appointment to azu I astJf'a th [an ][office ][by ][the ][State ][to be remunerated either ]. • [by ][the ]Rama Rao use of land or by money, salary, etc.; 1t 1s not the case v of grant of land burdened with service, distinction The State of which was explained by the Privy Council in Lakham-Andhra Pradesh gouda Basavprabhu Sardesai v. Baswantrao and ~ Others Others('). In Venkata v. Rama(') where the question s. K. Das for decision was the effect of the enfranchisement of 1. lands forming the emoluments of the hereditary village office of Karnam, it was pointed out:

"Emoluments for the discharge of the duties of the office were provided either in the shape of land exempt from revenue or subject to ·a lightel'. assess-ment, or of fees in grain or cash, or of both land and fees •

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When the emoluments consisted of land, the land did not become the family property of the person appointed to the office, whether in virtue of an here-:litary claim to the office or otherwise. It was an appanage of the office inalienable by the office holder and designed .to be the emolument of the officer into whose hands soever the offica might pass. If the Revenue authorities thought fit to disregard the claim of person who asserted an hereditary right to the office and conferred it on stranger, the person appointed to the office at once become entitled to the lands which constituted its emolument."

The same view was re-affirmed in Musti Venkata Jagannada Sharma v. Musti Veerabhadrayya (') where the history of the office of Karna.m was examined and it was observed that the "Karnam of the village occupies his office not by hereditary or family right, but as personal appointee, though in certain cases that appointment is primarily exercised in favour of suitable person who is member of particular family." This latter decision was considered by Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Manubolu Ranga Reddi v. Maram Reddi Dasaradharami Reddi(')

(2) I,L.R. 8 Mad. 249.

(1) A.I.R. 1931 P.C. 157.

(3) A.I.R. 1022 P.C. g6,

(4) I.L.R. [1938] Mad. 249.

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

and it was pointed out that their Lordships of the I9[60 ]Privy Council, though they indicated the nature ofG 1[[. ]][[-D-· ]]th t rig t w • h' IC K t arnam d"d , 1 not cons1 'd er th azu Rama Rama asara Rao Rao question whether on the creation of an office under v. s. 6(1), the members of the family of the last holder The State of of the abolished office had the right to compel the Andhra Pradesh Collector to carry out the duty cast upon him by the "'° Others section. It was held thats. 6(1) creates right in the s. I<. Das J. family which can be enforced by suit. Learned Counsel for respondent 4 has relied on this decision. It is worthy of note, however, that the decision was given on the footing thats. 6(1) was valid and man-datory in character. No question arose or could at that t.ime arise of the contravention of fundamental right guaranteea by the Constitution, by the here-ditary principle embodied in s. 6(1) of the Act. The decision proceeded on the footing that the Act recog-nised 'right vested in family' to the office in question and contained provisions to enforce that right. It did not proceed upon the footing that the family had right to the property in the shape of emoluments, independent or irrespective of the office. In other words, the decision cannot be relied upon in support of the contention that hereditary village office is like shebaiti, that is, office cum property. That was not the ratio of the decision. The ratio simply was this that the Act had· recognised the right vested in family to the office in question. That decision cannot assist respondent 4 in support of his contention that Art. 16, els. (1) and (2), do not apply to the office, even though the office is an office under the State. In Ramachamlurani Purshotham v. Rama-charuZurani Venkatappa and Another ([1]) the question was whether the office of Karnam was 'property' within-the meaning of Art. 19(l)(f) of the Constitution. It was held that it was not property within the mean-ing of that Article. The same view was expressed in Pasala Rama Rao v. Board of Revenue (2) where it was observed that the right to succeed to hereditary office was not property and the relation back of an adopted son's rights was only with regard to property. (I) A.I.R. 1952 Mad. 150. (z) A.I.R. 1954 Mad, 483,

th 1[[. ]][[-D-· ]]azu Rama Rama asara Rao Rao

zg6o This view was not accepted in Chandra Ohowdary v. G~zu Rama I asaral Rao the [The Board ]iact i!. th.at [of ][Revenue(') ]the adoption was [where ], [it ]J?Osth11;mous [was observed ]did , [that ]not •. make any difference and the adoption bemg to the last The State of office holder, the adopted son must be deemed to have Andhra Pradesh been in existence at the time of the death of the male '"' Others holder and had the right to succeed to the office. It -• was further observed that the office of Village s. K. Das f. Munsif was !property' so as to attract the operation of the rule that the adoption related back to the date of the death of the last male holder. We are not concern-ed in this case with the doctrine of relation back in the matter of posthumous adoption. The simple question before us is whether the office, though it is an office under the State, is of such nature that els. (1) and (2) of Art. 16 of the Constitution are not attracted to it. We are of the view that there is nothing in the nature of the office which takes it out of the ambit of els. (1) and (2) of Art. 16 of the Constitution. An office has its emoluments, and it would be wrong to hold that though the office is an office under the State, it is not within the ambit of Art. 16 because at time prior to the Con-stitution, the law recognised custom by which there was preferential right to the .office in the members of particular family. The real question is-is that custom which is recognised and regulated by the Act consistent with the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 16? We do not agree with learned Counsel for respondent 4 that the family had any pre-existing right to property in the shape of the emoluments of the office, independent or irrespective of the office. If there was no such pre-existing right to property apart from the office, then the answer must clearly be that Art. 16 applies and s. 6(1) of the Act in so far as it makes discrimination on the ground of descent only, is violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner. There can be no doubt thats. 6(1) of the Act does embody principle of discrimination on the ground of descent only. It says that in choosing the persons to fill the new offices, the Collector shall select the per-sons whom he may cOn!iider the best qualified from (I) A.I.R. 1959 Andhra Pradesh 343-

G~zu I asaral Rama Rao

2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

among the families of the last holders of the offices which have been abolished. This, in our opinion, is . . . l . . di scr1mmat1on on t groun o escent on y an ism contravention of Art. 16(2) of the Constitution.

th azu 1 [-D ]asara Rama Rao

Learned CounseJ for respondent 4 has also submit-The State of ted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to assert ndhra Pradesh the invalidity of s. 6(1) of the Act when he himself & Others made an application for appointment as Village s. K. Das 1. Munsif under the Act. He has drawn our attention to the decision in Bapatla Venkata Subba Rao v. Sikharam Ramakrishna Rao([1]). That was case where the appellant was appointed as hereditary Karnam under the Act and but for the Act, he would not have had any claim to be appointed to the office of Karnam. It was held that he could not be permitted to contend for the first time in appeal that the very Act but for which he would not have had any right to the 'Office, was unconstitutional. part from the --question whether fundamental right can be waived, ques-tion which does not fall for consideration in this case, it is clear to us that the facts here are entirely different. The petitioner had the right to make an applicatfon for the new village office and he was accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Respon-dents 1 to 3, however, passed orders adverse to him and in favour of respondent 4, acting on the prin-ciple of discrimination on the ground of descent only as embodied in s. 6(1) of the Act. It is, we think, open to the petitioner to say thats. 6(1) of the Act in so far as it violates his fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 16 of the Constitution is void and his application for appointment must, therefore, be decid-ed on merits.

Finally, we must notice one other argument ad vanc-ed by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The argument is based on the distinction between Arts. 15 and 16. We have said earlier that Art. 15 is, in one respect; more general than Art. 16 because its operation is not restricted to public employment; it operates in the entire field of State discrimination. But in another sense, with

(I) A.I.R. 1958 Andhra Pradesh 32a.

z96o regard to the grounds of discrimination, it is perhaps th less wide than Art. 16, because it does not include azu Rama I [-D-]asara Rao 'd escent , amongst t groun s o d" rncr1mmat10n. · · · Th v. argument before us is that the provision impugned in The State of this case must be tested in the light of Art. 15 and Andhra Pradesh not Art. 16. It is submitted by the learned Advocate-& Others Generaf that the larger variety of grounds mentioned S. K. Das]. in Art. 16 should lead us to the conclusion that Art. 16 does not apply to offices where the law recognises right based on descent. We consider that such an argument assumes as correct the very point which is disputed. If we assume that Art. 16 does not apply, then the question itself is decided. But why should we make that assumption? If the office in q.uestion is an office under the State, then Art. 16 in terms applies; therefore, the question is whether the office of Village Munsif is an office under the State. We have held that it is. It is perhaps necessary to point out here that cl. (5) of Art. 16 shows that the Article does not bear the restricted meaning which the learned Advocate-General has canvassed for; because an incumbent of an office in connexion with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution need not necessarily be member of the Civil Service.For the reasons given above, we allow the petition. The orders of respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the appointment to the post of Village Munsif of Perava-lipalem in favour of respondent 4 are set aside and we direct that the application of the petitioner for the said office be now considered on merits by the Revenue authorities concerned on the footing that s. 6( 1) of the Act in so far as it infringes the funda-mental right of the citizens of India under Art. 16 of the Constitution is void. The petitioner will be entitl-ed to his costs of the hearing in this Court.

Pet it ion allowed.