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

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 931 · Decided: 06-12-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
931 
under appeal has already been filed by the respon-
1960 
dents before the High Court on December 23, 1959, 
Jagat Dhish 
the High Court should now proceed to hear the appe,al 
Bhargava 
on the merits and deal with it in accordance with law. 
v. 
In the circumstances of this case we make no order as 
Jawahar Lal 
to costs. 
Bhartava b Others 
Appeal dismissed. 
GAZULA DASARATHA RAMA RAO 
v. 
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 a village of the same name and a 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 a 
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 
Gajendragadlrar], 
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961) 
z96o 
respo.ndent 4 which expressly stated that they proceeded on the 
-
basis of the hereditary principle laid down ins. 6(1) of the Act, 
Garula Dasa,atha discriminated against him as a citizen on the ground of descent 
Rama Rao 
only an.d violated the guarantee of equal opportunity enshrined 
v. 
in Art. r6 of the Constitution of India, and (2) thats. 6(r) of the 
Th• State of 
Act, to the extent that it permitted such discrimination was 
Andhra Pradesh void under Art. 13(1) of the Constitution. The plea of the 
& Others 
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 a customary village office later 
recognised and regulated by law, and (2) that Art. 16 did not 
apply to a hereditary office because a person entitled to it under 
the Act had a pre-existing right to the office and its emoluments 
which could be enforced by a suit. 
Held: (r) that a 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 a 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 a 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. 
S. K. DAS, J.-This is 11.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.