STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus P.M. BHASKARA GOWDA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 06-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
P.M. BHASKARA GOWDA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 6, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
B 
Karnataka Village Officers' Abolition Act, 1961 : 
Gram Sahayaks-Claim for regularization-Hereditary office of Gram 
Sahayaks abolished-Existing Gram Sahayaks appointed on compassionate C 
ground as Sahayak Lekhpa/ and allowed to continue on ad-hoc basis-Claim 
for regularization of services and payment of salary as group D emp/oyees-
Held, validity of the Act having been upheld and no appointment on hereditary 
basis could be made, no order for regularization of their services could be 
passed in favour of claimants-State in exercise of jurisdiction under proviso D 
to Article 309 of the Constitution entitled to make rules laying down terms and 
conditions of the service. 
Gazu/a Dasaratha Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 
(1961) 2 SCR 931 and B.R. Shankaranarayana and Ors. v. State of Mysore, 
AIR (1966) SC 1571, relied on. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4559-4562 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.96 of the Karnataka 
Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in Application No. 6233-36 of 1995. F 
P.P. Rao, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K. Mishra and Balaji Iyer for the 
Appellants. 
R.S. Hedge, Chandra Prakash, Ms. Savitri Pandey, P. Devesh, S.N. 
Bhat, D.P. Chaturvedi, P. R. Ramasesh, Ms. Vandana Jalan and P.P. Singh G 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
In the State of Kamataka there existed several hereditary village offices, H 
347 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A namely, Patel, Patwari and Gramsahayaks prior to 1961. In the year 1961, the 
Kamataka Legislature passed an Act known as Kamataka Village Officers's 
Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') in terms whereof 
all the hereditary offices at village level were abolished. However, the holders 
of such offices were allowed to continue on ad-hoc basis on compassionate 
B ground. Subsequently a circular was issued providing for compassionate 
appointment of children of Gramsahayaks who hold earlier hereditary offices 
on November 1, 1991 and died in harness. 
It appears that the respondents herein were appointed as Gramsahayaks 
in pursuance of the Government order permitting the hereditary offices to 
C continue on ad-hoc basis. It is not disputed that respondents were appointed 
as Sahayak Lekhpal between 1979 to 1983. Alleged on the ground that what 
were paid to them as salary was very meagre; they filed an original application 
before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore praying therein to 
pay unto them salary which was being paid to other Group D employees and 
further to regularise their services as Group D employees with all consequential 
D benefits. The Kamataka Administrative Tribunal by order dated December 5, 
1996 partly allowed the said petition directing the State of Kamataka, the 
appellant herein, to pay a sum of Rs. 900 per month till the appellant came 
out with proper scheme laying down the conditions of service of the 
Gramsahayaks. It is against the said judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant 
E is in appeal before us by means of this special leave petition. 
Shri P .P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, 
urged that since the respondents herein were appointed being the childre.1 of 
holders of hereditary office on ad-hoc basis, the Tribunal committed an error 
in directing the appellant to frame recruitment rules for them. We find 
F substance in the argument. 
In Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & 
Ors., [1961] 2 SCR 931, the abolition of the Madras Hereditary Village-
Offices Act, 1895 was challenged as being void insofar as it infringes the 
G fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This 
Court was of the view that if there is a custom which has been recognized 
by Jaw as regard any hereditary village office, the same must yield to a 
fundamental right contained in Part III of the Constitution of India. It was 
also found that the hereditary village office under the State and Article 16 in 
tum applies and therefore any appointment pursuant to such custom could be 
H ultra vires. The validity of the said Act was, thus, upheld. 
STATE v. P.M.B.GOWDA 
349 
In B.R. Shankaranarayana and Ors. v. State of Mysore AIR, [1966) SC A 
· · 1571, the validity of Mysore Village Office Abolition Act, 1961 came t

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