# D. NAGARAJA ETC v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 626
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-01-18
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/d-nagaraja-etc-v-state-of-karnataka-ors-7086
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

<;: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.Acco1111tant3 (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 consistant 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 Accountants.
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 resnondents 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 describe 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 hereditary Village Offices having been upheld' by this Court, the appellants who did
not apply for appointment as Village Accountants

## Text

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.Acco1111tant3 (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 consistant 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 Accountants.
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 resnondents 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 describe 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 hereditary Village Offices having been upheld' by this Court, the appellants who did
not apply for appointment as Village Accountants in response to the notification inviting applications, since they did not possess the prescribed
qualifications, could not complain of the unconstitutionality of the 1972 Rules or of the
infringement of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. The High Court,
therefore, was right in holding that the appellants have no right to maintain the
writ petitions. [631 ·E-H 632 A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
883
898-905/75.
and
"
I~
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
20-2-75 of the Karnataka 'High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5825/74
and 5818, 5820, 5821, 5822, 5823, 5824, 5828 and 5829 of 1974.
A
B
R. B. Datar for the Appellants in all the appeals.
C
V. P. Raman, Addl. Sol. Genl (In CA 883/75) and N. Nettar
for RR 1 and 2 in all the appeals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH J.
This judgment isha!Q dispose of Appeals Nos.
883 and 898 to 905 of 1975 which are directed against the common
D
judgment dated February 20, 1975 of the High Court of Karnataka at
Bangalore dismissing writ petitions Nos. 5825, 5818, 5820, 5822 to
5824, 5828 and 5829 of 1974 on the ground that the appellants had
no right to maintain the same.
llhe circumstances leading to .these appeals are:
The appellants
held the posts of shambogues on hereditary basis under the Mysore
Village Offices Act, 1908. 'In writ .petition No. 133 of 1959 entitled
Gazu/a Daseratha Rama Rao v. State of A;P, .& Ors.(~) decided on
Pecember 6, -1960, this ·Court held that a faw ·which recognised the
custom by which .a preferential .Fight to an office vested in the members of a particular .family was not consistent with the fundamental
right guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution; ·that ·a custom
which is recognised iby law with .regard to a hereditary office must
yield to a fundamental right .and_section 6(1) of the Madras Hereditary Village· Offices Act JU of •1895 in so ifar as it made ·discrimination on the ·ground of descent only was -violative of the fundamental
right under Article 16 (2) .of ·.the ·Constitution and was ·void.
With a
view to giving effect to the principle settled by this decision,
the
Legislature of the •then State «Jif 'Mysore comprising ·the •territories of
the erstwhile States of Mysore . and ·coorg and certain .parts of the
erstwhile ·States of Bombay, Hyderabad and Madras
enacted
the
Mysore Village •Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (Act XIV of 1961)
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Abolition Act') abolishing
all
the
hereditary villlage offices including the office of shambogue or. village
Accountant created under the Mysore Village .offices
Act,
1908.
Pursuant to sub"section (3) of section 1 which authorised the State
Government 'to fix a date 1for ·the commencement .of the
Act, ·the
Government of Mysore issued a notification.on January 9, 1963 noti1fying ·that the Abolition Act would come into force with effect from
February 1, 1-963.
(ll [19611 2 S.C.R. 931 =A.LR. 1961 SC. 564.
6-112 scrm
E
F
G
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2.s.c.R.
Shortly after the according of the assent to the Abolition Act by
the President on July 8, 1961, tihe Governor of Mysore framed rules
c~lled the Mysore General Service (Revenue Subordinate Branch)
~illage Accountants (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1961 in exercise of the powers vested in him under the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution and other powers enab;ing him in that behalf. These
Rules, as evident from their title, were designed to regulate the recruitment, pay and other conditions of service of Village Accountants.
Rule 10 of the 1961 Rules which was in the nature of a non obstante
provision provided for the initial recruitment to the posts· of Village
Accountants to be made from amongst persons holding the posts of
village officers on the date of commencement of those Rules provided
that such persons had passed the
S. S. L. C. examination or
an
equivalent examination and tlreir age did not exceed 40 years on the
said date.
By a proviso which was introduced in the year, 1963, it
was provided that in the event of persons satisfying the qualifications
mentioned in Rule 7 not being available even after the vacancies are
twice advertised, the recruitment should be made from amongst persons
holding the posts of village officers who were not more than 50 years of
age on the date of commencement of the said Rules and who had
passed the Lower Secondary or Vernacular Final or equivalent examination.
By a notification issued on January 6, 1963, the Government of
Mysore directed the D.eputy Commissioners to appoint persons recruited
under the 1961 Rules as village accountants and relieve the then
holders of their offices. On the issue of the aforesaid notification
dated January 9, 1963, a number of writ petitions under Article 226
of the Constitution were filed in the High Court challenging the legality
and constitutional validity of the Abolition Act on the ground that it
was· a piece of colourable legislation. During the pendency of the
writ pe;titions, an ad-interim order staying the operation of the afore-
. said Notification dated January 9, 1963 was issued by the High Court.
'
As a consequence of the stay order, the appellants and a number of
other persons who were holding the posts of Shambogues under the
Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908 had to be continued· by the State
Government in the posts held by them.
The writ petitions were
eventually dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated December 9, 1963 which was confirmed by this Court vide its judgment
dated January 21, 1966 rendered in B. R. Shankaranarayana & Ors. v.
State of Mysore('). Thus the constitutional validity of the Abolition
Act was finally upheld by the Court. · During the pendency of the
appeals against the judgment of the High Court dated December 9,
1963, the State Legislature enacted the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which came into force on
April 1, 1964. Section 16 of the Act provides for the appointment of
Village Accountants and the continuance of village accountants hold-
·ing the said posts immediately before the commencement of the Act.
~uh-section (1) of section 16 lays down that, subiect to the general
orders of the State Government and the Divisional Commissinner, the
Deputy Commissioner can a?point Village ~ccountants f~r villacres or
groups of villages. Sub-section (2) of section 16 provides that the
(1) A.LR. 1966 S.C. 1571.
'
)
D. NAGARAJA v. KARNATAKA (Jaswant Singh, J.)
629
persons holding the office of the Village Accountant before the comA
mencement of the Act, shall be deemed to be Village Accountants for
such villages till another person is appointed under sub-section (1) of
section 16. Thus sub-section (2) of section 16, it would be seen, was;
designed to cover the case of the persons who had perforce to be
continued as Shambogues because of the aforesaid stay order issued by
the High Court despite the abolition of those posts by the Abolition
~
B
The 1961 Rules were repealed and replaced by another set of
Rules called the Karnataka General Services
(Revenue Subordinate
Branch) Village Accountants (Recruitment) Rules, 1970
(hereafter
referred to as the 1970 Rules) made by the State Government in
exercise of the powers conferred by sections 16 and 1 7 of the Act.
C
Rules 4 and 5 of the 197.0 Rules which were amended from time to
time stood as follows on the relevant date :-
"4. Recruitment. ( 1) Recruitment to the cadre of village
Accountant shall be made by direct recruitment · from
amongst:-
D
(i) persons who have served as Village Officers;
(ia) local candidates whether in service or not, who have
put in a total of not less than one year of service as
on 1st January, 1970, if sufficient number of eligible
persons are not available under (i) ;
E
(ii) persons who have been regularly recruited as
Pan~
chayat Secretaries in accordance with the rules in
force at {he time of the -recruitment and working as
Panchayat Secretaries who have passed the S.S.L.C.
examination or any other examination declared as
equivalent thereto by the State Government if sufficient number of eligible persons are not available
under (ia) ;
(iii) persons who are regularly recruited as Panchayat
Secretaries in accordance with the rules in force at
. the timi;: of recruitment and working as Panchayat
Secretanes who-
(a) have passed the Middle School examination or
any other examination declared as . equivalent
thereto by the State Government; and
F
G
(b) have put in not less than 10 years of service as
Panchayat Secretaries as the case may be if
H
sufficient number of eligible persons are not
available under (ii) ;
A
B
c
D
G
H
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977J 2 S.C.R.
( c) are not more than 50 years of age as on 1st
April, 1967 ;
(iv) xx
xx
xx
(v)
oth~rs, if sufficient number of persons are not
available under any of the above categories.
(2) No persons other than the persons referred to in
categories (ii) and (iii) of sub-rule ( 1) "shall be eligible for
appointment under these rules unless . he has passed the
S.S.L.C. examination or .any examination
declared by the
State Government as equivalent thereto.
( 3) The limit for appointment under sub-rule (I) shall
be-
( i) 3 3 years in the case of a person belonging to
any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes;
and
(ii) 28 years in
the case of
others as on
1st January, 1970.
Provided that in the case of person who have served as
Village Officer or as .Panchayat Secretary such age as on 1st
April, 1967, shall not exceed 50 years.
Provided further that in the case of local candidates, such
age shall be as~ 1st January, .1965 :
Explanation-For the purpose
of
this
rule "Village
Officer" means a person who held a 'Village Office'
other than in inferior village office as defined in the
Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1961) ."
"5. Committee for se/ection-(1) There shall
be
a
Committee for each district consisting of the Deputy Commissioner of the District, the Assistant Commissioner, shall
be the Chairman of the Committee and one of the members
appointed by the Deputy Commissioner shall be the
Secretary.
(2) The Committee shall call for application for appointment as village Accountants and make selection in the
manner laid down in the Mysore State Civil Services (Direct
Recr_uitment by Selection) ·Rules, 1967.
(3) The decision of the Committee shall be final subject
to the approval of the Divisional Commissioner.
( 4) The list approved by the Divisional Commissioner
shall be published and appointments shall be made in order
in which the names of persons selected are arranged in the
5aid list."
!
o. NAGARAJA v. KARNATAKA (Jaswant Singh, !.)
63•1
Pursuant to the 1970 Rules, applicatipns were invited by ··the
A
Recruitment Committee in the year, 1972 to fill up the posts of
Village Accountants in the District of Hassan.
After sorting out the
applications received in response to the advertisement,
the
Committee interviewed the applicants who were eligible for appointment
and prepared a list of the selected candidates for appointment as
Village Accountants. This list was quashed by the High Court by its
judgment dated November 19,
1972 rendered in writ petition
B
No. 1871 of 1972 entitled Komari Gowda v. State of Mysore & Ors.
and the Committee was directed to select the candidates afresh in
accordance with law.
Consequently the Committee again interviewed
the eligible candidates and prepared a fresh list of the selected candidates which was publishe~ in the Karnataka Gazette on May 30, 1974.
Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan issued orders of
appointment of the candidates who were selected by the Recruitment c
Committee. Some of the candidates thus selecteQ were posted as
Village Accountants under section 16 ~2) of the Act to the villages in
which the appellants were functioning.
As the appellants, had to give
up their posts in consequence of. the aforesaid fresh
appointments
under section 16(2) of the Act, they filed the aforesaid writ petitions
impugning (i) the validity of rules 4 and 5 of tl1e 1970 Rules on the
ground that they were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the ConstituD
tion, (ii) th~ selection and appointment of re~pondents 3 to 191
as
Village Accountants and praying that a writ of mandamus be issued
directing respondents 1 and 2 to continue them as Village Accountants under s_ection 16(2) of the Act. The writ petitions having been
dismissed by the High Court as stated above,
the appellants have
come up i11J appeal to this Court.
The sole question that requires to be determined in these appeals
is whether the appellants could maintain that aforesaid writ petitions.
It is well settled that though Article 226 of the Constitution in term~
does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder,
the existence of the right is implicit for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court under the said Article. It is
also welrestablished that .a person who is not aggrieved by the discrimination complained of cannot maintain a writ petition. The constitutional validity of the Abolition Act abolishing all hereditary village
offices including the office of the Shambogue or Village Accountant
having been upheld by this Court in B. R. Slwnkaranarayana & Ors.
v. State of Mysore (supra), and the first preference in the matter of
appointment o~ Village Accountants having been given by Rule-4 of
the 1970 Rules to all persons belonging to the category and class of
the appellants who had served as Village Officers, the appellants who
did not apply for appointment as Village Accountants in response to
the aforesaid notification issued by the Recruitment Committee
and
did not possess the prescribed qualification, could not complain of the
unconstitutionality of the 1970 Rules or of the infringement 0£ Articles
E
F
G
14 and 16 of the Constitution which merely forbid improper or invidious distinctions by conferring rights or privileges upon a class of . H
persons arbitrarily selected from
out of a larger group who are
similarly circumstanced but do not exclude the laying down of selective tests nor prevent the Government from laying general educational
A
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977J 2 S.C.R.
qualifications for the post in question.. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the appellants have no right to maintain the
aforesaid writ petitions. The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed but without any order as to costs.
B
P.H.P.
Appeals dismissed.
'·