D. NAGARAJA ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 626 · Decided: 18-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
·C 
E 
.F 
-G 
626 
D. NAGARAJA ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
January 18, 1977 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
<;:onstitutio'! of lndia-A~ticle 226-Who can apply-Whether existence of 
a rzght essenllal-Mysore Village Offices Act 1908-Mysore 
Village 
Of]ices 
Abolition Act 1961. 
Karnataka- General Services (Revenu,e Subordinate Branch) Village.Acco1111-
tant3 (Recruitment) Rules, 1970, 
The appellants held the post of Shambhpgues on hereditary basis under the 
Mysore Village Offices Act 1908. 
This Court in the case of Gow/a 
Dasrath 
~amarao held that a la\\'. which recognises the custom by which a preferential 
nght f? an office vested m t_he members of a particular family was not consis-
tant with the fundamental nght guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution 
and that the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act of 1895 in so far as it made 
discrimination 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 Mysqre Village Offices Abolition Act of 
1961 
was 
enacted abolishing 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 r~gu­
late the recruitment, pay and other condltions of service of Village Accoun-
tants. 
Rule 10 provided for the initial recruitment to 
the 
post of Village 
Accountants to be made from amongst persons holding posts of Village Officers 
on the date' of commencement of those rules provided th~y fulfilled certain 
educational qualifications and were below a certain 
age. .Challenge 
to 
the 
constitutional validity 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 Kamataka Land Revenue Act 1964 
Section 
16 of the said Act provides for the appointment of Village Accountants and the 
continuance of Village Accountants hold the said post immediately before the 
commencement of the Act. 
Section 16 ( e) provides that persons holding the 
office of the Village Accountant befor·e 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 
appointment 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 prepard a list of 
selected pnd1dates and, th
0 reafter, issued the order of aopointment. 
As 
the 
appellants had to give up their· posts in co_nsequence of the fresh appointments 
they filed the present writ petitions impugning the velidity of rules 4 and 5 of 
the 1970 Rules on the ground that thoy were violative of Articles J4 and 16 
of the Constitution and challenging the selection and aoonintment of resnon-
dents Nos. 3 to 191 as Village Accountants and for a direction that they should 
be continued as Village Accountants. 
The High Court dismissed the writ 
petitions. 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD : t. Though Article 226 of the Constitution in terms does not des-
cribe the classes of nersons entitled to applv thereunder. the existence of the 
right is implicit for invokinp; the. exercise. of the extra.ordinary jurisdiction by 
the High Court under the said Arttcle. It is well estabhshed that a person who. 
/ 
D. NAGARAJA v. KARNATAKA (Jaswant Singh, J.) 
627 
is not aggrieved by the discrimination complained of cannot maintain· a 
writ 
petition. The constitutional validity ()f the Abolition Act abolshing all here-
ditary Village Offices having been upheld' by this Court, the appellants who did 
not apply for appointment as Village Accountants in response to the notifica-
tion inviting applications, since they did not possess the prescribed 
qualifica-
tions, could not complain of the unconstitutionality of the 1972 Rules or of the 
infringement of Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution. The High

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.