# K. RAJENDRAN & ORS. ETC. ETC v. STATE OF TAMIL NADO & ORS - **Citation:** [1982] 3 S.C.R. 628 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1982-04-15 - **Bench:** S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, E.S. Venicataramiah, A. Varadarajan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/k-rajendran-ors-etc-etc-v-state-of-tamil-nado-ors-8351 - **Pages:** 42 ## Headnote • Constitution of India 1950, Article1 14. 19 (I) (g), 32 and 311 (2) & Tamil ~ Nadu Abolition of posts of part-time Village Officers Act 1981, Ss,2 (•), 3 and 5. State enactment-Abolition of civil po1ts-Posts of'part-time' village offictr1 abollshtd-lntroduction of whole-time village administrative o.ffictr1-Whethtr valid . D and legal. E G H Civil Servic~Civil post-Abolition ~f Polt-Whether 'govtrnmen.t has a right-Abolition of post and abolttion of cadrt-Di.stinction-Rights of the incum· bent of the post. In the State of Tamil Nadu the administration was carried on at the village level by 3. chain bf officers in regular gradation one above the Other since the comlnencement Or the Christian era. This system .known as the barabaluti system consisted of twelve functionaries : (i) headman, (2) kamam or acc®ntant, (3) shroff or notazar; ( 4) nirganti, (5) toty or taliary, (6) potter, (7) smith, (8) ieweller .. (9) carpenter, (!O) barber, (II) washerman and (12) astrologer. The first five rendere.d service to the Government. By the end of the ninCteenth century, two Acts were enacted for the purpose of regulating the work of these village offices. The Madras Proprietary States' Village Service Act, 1894 (Madr's Act No.11of1894) dealt.with three classes of vihage officers viz. village accountants, village headman and yiJlage watchman. It provided for their appointment, remuneration and summary punishment of misconduct or neglect of duty. The Madras Hereditary Village Offices· Act 1895 (Madras Act No. Ill of 1895) regulated the succession to certain other hereditary village offices and provided for the appointment of persons to bold such offices and the control or the holders thereof. Under both these statutes, the village offices devolved on a single heir according to the general custom and rule of primogeniture governing succession to i(l)partible zamidaris. Io cases to which the aforesaid two 'Statutes. were inapplicable provision was made by the Standing Orders promulgated by the Board of Reveoile, which were known as the Board's Standing Orders for appointing village offi:ers on a hereditary basis. - • • k. RAIENDRAN V. TAMIL NAbU (Venkataralniah, J.) 629 The distinctive features of the service conditions of the village officers appointed under the a:foresaid two Acts or the Board's Standing Orders were that they were part~time employees of th~ Government, tbey fiCre appointed direct1y by the Revenue Officer, the records maintained by them could be retained in their frouses, no fixed hours of duty were prescribed, they were not constituted into any distinct service, could not be transferred outside their district, and that they were paid honorarium for the services that they dis~ charged. The Fundamental Rules applicable to all other State Government employees, the Pension Rules, and the Leave Rules were not applicable. to these· village officers. This Court in Gazula Daaaratha Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [1961] 2 SCR 931 having held that section 6 (1) of the Madras Act No. 3 of 1895 was void as it contravened Article 16 (2) of the Constitution, instructions .,.were issued by the Board of Revenue on March 12, 1962 that -in respect of future vacancies in village offices governed by the Madras Act No. 2 of 1894, and the Madras Act No., 3 of 1895, the appointments should be made on a temporay basis, and the State Legislature enacted the Madras Proprietary Estates' Village Service and the Madras 'Hereditary Village Offices '(Repeal) Art, 1968 repealing the 1894 and 1895 Acts. Pursuant to section 3 of this Act, the State Government promulgated that Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service Rules, 1970 which provided for tbe constitution of the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service, consisting of (i) Village ileadman, additional village headman, (ii) village kamam, additional village karnam, and (iii) taJayari and nirganti and the method of recrUitment to the said posts. In the year 1973, the Administrative Reforms Commi ## Text _Characters 0–39,981 of 101,412. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39981 for what follows._ A 628 B c K. RAJENDRAN & ORS. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADO & ORS. April 15, 1982· [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, E.S. VENICATARAMIAH AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.) • Constitution of India 1950, Article1 14. 19 (I) (g), 32 and 311 (2) & Tamil ~ Nadu Abolition of posts of part-time Village Officers Act 1981, Ss,2 (•), 3 and 5. State enactment-Abolition of civil po1ts-Posts of'part-time' village offictr1 abollshtd-lntroduction of whole-time village administrative o.ffictr1-Whethtr valid . D and legal. E G H Civil Servic~Civil post-Abolition ~f Polt-Whether 'govtrnmen.t has a right-Abolition of post and abolttion of cadrt-Di.stinction-Rights of the incum· bent of the post. In the State of Tamil Nadu the administration was carried on at the village level by 3. chain bf officers in regular gradation one above the Other since the comlnencement Or the Christian era. This system .known as the barabaluti system consisted of twelve functionaries : (i) headman, (2) kamam or acc®ntant, (3) shroff or notazar; ( 4) nirganti, (5) toty or taliary, (6) potter, (7) smith, (8) ieweller .. (9) carpenter, (!O) barber, (II) washerman and (12) astrologer. The first five rendere.d service to the Government. By the end of the ninCteenth century, two Acts were enacted for the purpose of regulating the work of these village offices. The Madras Proprietary States' Village Service Act, 1894 (Madr's Act No.11of1894) dealt.with three classes of vihage officers viz. village accountants, village headman and yiJlage watchman. It provided for their appointment, remuneration and summary punishment of misconduct or neglect of duty. The Madras Hereditary Village Offices· Act 1895 (Madras Act No. Ill of 1895) regulated the succession to certain other hereditary village offices and provided for the appointment of persons to bold such offices and the control or the holders thereof. Under both these statutes, the village offices devolved on a single heir according to the general custom and rule of primogeniture governing succession to i(l)partible zamidaris. Io cases to which the aforesaid two 'Statutes. were inapplicable provision was made by the Standing Orders promulgated by the Board of Reveoile, which were known as the Board's Standing Orders for appointing village offi:ers on a hereditary basis. - • • k. RAIENDRAN V. TAMIL NAbU (Venkataralniah, J.) 629 The distinctive features of the service conditions of the village officers appointed under the a:foresaid two Acts or the Board's Standing Orders were that they were part~time employees of th~ Government, tbey fiCre appointed direct1y by the Revenue Officer, the records maintained by them could be retained in their frouses, no fixed hours of duty were prescribed, they were not constituted into any distinct service, could not be transferred outside their district, and that they were paid honorarium for the services that they dis~ charged. The Fundamental Rules applicable to all other State Government employees, the Pension Rules, and the Leave Rules were not applicable. to these· village officers. This Court in Gazula Daaaratha Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [1961] 2 SCR 931 having held that section 6 (1) of the Madras Act No. 3 of 1895 was void as it contravened Article 16 (2) of the Constitution, instructions .,.were issued by the Board of Revenue on March 12, 1962 that -in respect of future vacancies in village offices governed by the Madras Act No. 2 of 1894, and the Madras Act No., 3 of 1895, the appointments should be made on a temporay basis, and the State Legislature enacted the Madras Proprietary Estates' Village Service and the Madras 'Hereditary Village Offices '(Repeal) Art, 1968 repealing the 1894 and 1895 Acts. Pursuant to section 3 of this Act, the State Government promulgated that Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service Rules, 1970 which provided for tbe constitution of the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service, consisting of (i) Village ileadman, additional village headman, (ii) village kamam, additional village karnam, and (iii) taJayari and nirganti and the method of recrUitment to the said posts. In the year 1973, the Administrative Reforms Commission set up by the State Government recommended that the existing part-time village officers should _l-- be replaced by regular whole-time transferable public servants who should form part of the Revenue hierarchy. The State Government accepted this recommenda1ion and promulgated on May 17, 1975 tho Tamil Nadu ViJlage Officers (appoirited under B,S, Os) Service Rules 1974. Thereaf1er on October 9, 1978 the - Tamil Nadu Village Officers (appointed under B.S.Os) Service Rules 1978 were ~ issued fixing the age of retirement of village of6cCrs at 60 years. ~. On November 13, 1980, the Tamil Nadu Abolition of posts of part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1980 was promulgated abolishing the posts of parttime village officers in the State. The Ordinance was later replaced by the Tamil Nadu abolition of posts of part-time Village Officers 'Act 1981, which provided for _the d.Ppointmcnt of Village Administrative Officers. By section 3 of the Act, the posts of part-time village officers were abolished with eff~ct from November 14, 1980.and every officer holding a post so abolished ceased to hold such post, and secl!On 5 provided for payment of compensation to those who ceased to be part-time villas• officers. The petitioners in their writ petition to this Court contended that the A B c D E F G -'-.. Ordinance and the Act were violative of Article 19 (1) (g); Article 311 (2), and H ·contravened Article 14 of the Con,titution, The State Government contested the p6titions and contended that the State, Government being of the opinion that the / B , c 63() 8ln>IU!Mli .couat REJ.'Oat~ !l 9S2i 3 s.c.t\.. system of part·time Village-Officers was out·moded and did not fit in with the modem needs of village administration, after careful consideration taken the policy decision to abolish all tho posts· of part•time village offii:ers on grounds of administrative necessity and to introduce a system of whole-time officers to be incharge of the village administration. To achieve this, the Ordinance was promulgated on November J4, 1980 which was later, replaced by the Act. It Was further contended, that since b)"tho Ordinance and the Act, certain posts had· been abolished, the petitioners who were incumbents of tho abolished posts could nottaiso any of the grounds raised by thorn •. Dismissing the petitions. HELD : 1. (I) Tho power to abolish a civil post is inherent in tho right to create it. The Government bas always- the power, subject to the consti· tutional provisions to reorganise a department to provide cfficiency1 and to bring about economy. It can .abolish an office or post in gopd faith. The action to abolish a post should not be just a pretence taken to got rid of an inconvenient incumbent, (643 OJ American Jurisprudene1 2d vo/.63 p, §48·649: H. Eliot Kap/a,,....,The Law of D Civil Service pp 214-215 referred to. In tho instant case tho abolition of the posts of village officers 'was sought to be achieved by a piece of legislation passed by the State Legislature, namely tho Tamil Nadu.Abolition of posts of part-time Village Officers Act, 1981. Want of good faith or ma!afides cannot be attributed to tho Legislature. (646 A] (ii)· Tho Act is ~ot violative or Article 19 (I) (g) as it does not affect the rfght of any of the incumbents of the posts to carry on any oecupation of their choice oven though they may not be able to stick on to tho posts which they wore holding. (647 CJ Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.} Sindri & Ors. v. Union of lnilia & Ors, (1981] 2 SCR 52, referred to. ,.,,.-· .G 2. (i) The doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 cannot be con· trolled by any legislation; but the exercise of that power by the President or tho _,.._ Governor, is however made subjecl to the other provisions of the Constitution, one of them being Article 31 t, which is not made subject to any other provision of tho Constitution and is paramount in tho field occupied by it. (648 D-BJ \ . (ii) The terminatiOn of service of a Government servant consequent upon the abolition of posts does not involve punishment at all and therefore doeA not attract Article 311 (i). (654 B; 654·B] · H Parashotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (1958] SCR 828 at 841, Motl ).- Ram Dtka ttc. v. Gt1,1tral Manag1r, N.E.F., Railw~y1, Maligaon, Pandu 1tc. • • - It. kAlilNbRAN v. tAMli.'NAbu {tlenkatariimiah, J.) 63t [1964]SSCR683andP.V. Naik & Ors. v. State ofMaharashtra&Anr.,AIR ,, 1967 Born, 482, referred to. (iii) If a post is not a special post and Its incumbent is a member of a cadi-e his rights as a member of the cadre should be considered before deciding whether he has ceased to be a government empioyee on· the abo!ition of the post .. On such scrutiny it is likely that.the services of .another member of the·· cadre may have to be terminated or Some other member of the cadre may have to· be reverted to a lower post from which hC may have been promoted to the cadre in question by the application of the principle of 'last come, first go'. If, however, where the post abolished i,"a special post or where an entire cadre is abolished and there is no lower cadfe to which the members of the abolished cadre can. reasonably be reverted, the application· Of this principle may not ~rise at all. [6S3 C,DJ State of Mysore'v. H. Papanna Gowda & Anr. etc. [1971) 2 S.C.R. 831, --r-- referred to. (iv) in modern administration, it is necessary to recognise the existence of the poWer with the legislatute Or the Ell:e'cutive to-create or abolish posts in the civil services-of the State. The volume of administrative work, the measures of economy and the need . for streamlining the administration to make it more efficient may induce the State Government to make alterations in the staffing 1 patterns of the civil service necessitating either the_ increase or the decrease in tbe number of posts. This power is inherent in the very concept of governmental administration. To deny that P,owef to the GoverD.ment is to strike at the very roots' of proper public administration. This power to abolish a post which may' • result in the holder thereof ceasing to be a Government servant has got to be recognised; ·but any action legislative or executive taken pursuant to that power is always subject to judicial review. (,6S6 A J) M. Ramanatha Pillai v. The State of Kera/a & Anr. (1974) I S.C.R. SIS, Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. The Union of India [1964J S S.C.R.- .190, Salish Chandra Anand v. The Union of India (1953) S.C.R. 6S5, Shyam Lal v. State of U,P, and Union of India [19SS] l S.C.R. 26, State of Haryana v. Des Raj Sangar & Anr. [1976] 2 S.C.R. 1034, referred to. / Abdul Khalik Renzu & Ors. v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir , AJf-. , 1965 J & K 15. overruled. In thtl instant case it cannot be said that tho State Act by which the villaie officers in the' State of Tamil Nadu were abolished; contravenes Article 311, (2). [657 F] (v) The posts of village olfic".'s which were governed by the Madras Act II of 1894, the Madras Act iii Qf 1895 and the Board's Standing Orders were feudalistic in character and the appointment to these posts were governed by the 1aw of primogeniture; the family in which the applicant was born, the village in which be was born, atid the fact whether be owned any property in the village or not. Thoee factors are , alien to modern-administrative service and clearly ' A If D Jil F G H A B \ c D F G H 632 SUPRiiMll COURT RiiP were known as (I) headl\lan, (2) karnam or accountant, (3) shroff or notaiar, (4) nirganti, (5) toty or taliary, (6) potter, (7) smith, (8) jeweller, (9) carpenter, (10) barber, (II) washerman and (12) astrologer. Of them, the first five only rendered service to Government. The headman who goes. by various names such as monigar, potail, naidoo, reddy, peddakapu etc. i2 an important officer. He represented the Government in the village, collected the revenue and had also magisterial and judicial powers of some min or nature.· As a magistrate he could punish persons for petty offences and as a Judge could try suits for §Ums of money or other personal property upto Rs. 10/- in value, there being no appeal against his decision. With the consent of the parties, he could adjudicate civil claims upto Rs. JOO/- in value. The headmati has been generally one of the largest landholders in the village having considerable influence over its inhabitants. The karnam or the village accountant maintained all the village accounts, inspected all fields in the village for purposes of gathering agricultural statistics, fixation of assessment and prevention and penalisation of encroachments, irregular use of water and verification of tenancy and enjoyment. The nirgantis guarded the irrigation sources and regulated the use of water. The toty or taliary assisted the village acc0untant in his work. By the end of the ninetellllth century', two Acts Were brought into force in the Presidency of Madras for the purpose of regulating the work· of som·e of the village officers. The Madras Proprietary Estates' Village Service Act, 1894 (Madras Act No. II of 1894) dealt with three classes of village officers viz. village accountants, village headmen and village watchmen or police officers in permanently settled estates, in unsettled palaiyams and in inam villages. It provided for their appointment and remuneration and for the prevention and summary punishment of misconduct or neglect of duty on their part and generally for securing their efficiency. The Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 (Madras Act No. III of 1895) regulated· the succession to certain other hereditary village offices in the Presidency of. Madras; 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. The village officers dealt with by this Act were (i). , )< • , . It. 11.AlllNDRAW v, TAMIL NADU (Venkataramiak, J,) 6JS village munsifs, ·(ii) potels, monigars and peddakapus, (iii) karnams, A (iv) nirgantjs, (v) vettis, totis and tar dalgars and (vi) talayariS inryo'twari villages or inam villages, which for the purpose of village administration, were grouped with. ryotwari villages. Under both these statutes, the village offices· were considered as hereditary in character and the succession to all hereditary village offices devolved on a single heir according to the general ci.stom and rule of primogeniture governing succession to impartible zamin· . daris in Southern india. When the person who would otherWise be entitled to succeed to a hereditary village office was a minor, such minor was being registered· as the heir of the last holder and some other person qualified · u11der the statutes in question to discharge the duties of the office was being appointed to discharge the duties of the office until the person registered as heir on attaining majority or within three years thereafter was qualified to discharge the duties of the office himself when he would be appointed thereto. If the person registered as heir remained otherwise disqualified for three years after attaining majority, he would be deemed to have forfeited his rii/ht to office and on such forfeiture or on ·his death, the vacancy had to be filled up in accordance with the provisions of the statute~ as if he was the last holder of,the office. It is stated that in cases to which the above two statutes were inapplicable, provision had been tt1ade by the Standing Orders promulgated by the Board of Revenue which were known as the Board's Standing Orders tor appointing village officers again generally on a hereditary basis. Some of the other distinct features of the service conditions of the village officers appointed under the Madras Act No. II of 1894 of the Madras Act No. III of 1895 or the Board's Standing Orders were that they were part-time employees of the Government; that the rt!cords maintained by them were allowed to be retained in their houses that there was no attendance register and no fixed hours of duty were prescribed in their case. They were appointeCI directly by the Revenue Division8' Officer and against his order, an appeal lay to the District Revenue Officer and then a revision to the Board of Revenue and a second revision to Government. They were not constituted into any distinct service, There was no provision for reservation of posts of village officers · for Scheduled Castes/SCheduled Tribes and backward classes. There was no miniinum general qualification (prescribed ptior to the year 1970 for persons to be appointed as village officers under the said statutes or the Board's St~nding Orde~s. It was enough if they were able to read and to write. No period of probation was pres8 c D E F G u 8 c D E F G H 636 SlJ!>kEME cotJkr REPORTS [198.2] 3 s.c.k. cribed after they were appointed. The Fundamental Rules appli· cable to all other State Government servants, the Pension Rules and the Leave Rules were not applicable to these village officers. They could take up part-time work ot occupation after securing necessary permission Jrom the concerned Revenue authorities. There was no age of superannuation fixed in their case and they were not entitled to retirement benefits such as gratuity .and 'pension. All village head· men including those who belonged to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had to furnish security in the form of property or cash the estimated value of which was not less than half the amount of land revenue and loan demand of the village. They could not be transferred outside their district. In fact "very rarely they were transferred. During the period of leave, no honorarium was paid to them and during the period of suspension, no subsistence allowance was paid. The honorarium paid to them was a fixed amount with no element .of dearness allowance. In M. Ramappa v. Sangappa & Ors.(') where this Court had to consider whether the officers holding the hereditary village offices under the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908 which contained provisions similar to the provisions of the two Madras Acts referred to above were qualified for being chosen as members of the State Legislative Assembly, it was held that such officers who were appointed to their offices by the Government, though it might be that the Government had no option in certain cases but to appoint an heir of the last holder, held offices of profit under the State Government since they held their office by reason of appointment made by the Government and they worked under the control and supervision of the Government and that their remuneration was paid by the Government out of the Government funds and assets. Accordingly this Court came to the conclusion that such village officers were disqualified under Article 191 (l)(a) of the Constitu· tion from contesting at an election to the State Legislative Assembly. In Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Pra· desh & Ors,(') this Court held .that section 6(1) of the Madras Here· ditary Village Offices Act, 1895 (Madras Act . No. 3 of 1895) whiCh provided that in choosing persons to..fill the new village offices of (1) [J959J'2 S.C.R. 1167. (2) [19611 2 s.c.R.931. .>- - - I • • K. RA!ENDRAN '·TAMIL NADU (Venkataramiah, J.) 637 an amalgamated village under that Act, the Collector should select the persons whom he considered to be the best qualified from among the families of the last holders of the offices in the villages which bad been abolished as a consequence of such amalgamation was void as it contravened Article I 6 (2) of the Constitution. After the above decision, instructions· were iss.ued by the Madras Board of Revenue on March 12, 1962 to the effect that in respect of future vacancies in village offices governed by 'the Madras Act No.II of 1894 and the Madras ,Act No. III of 189S, the appointments should be made on temporary basis only following the procedure prescribed under the Board's Standing Order No. 156. Since it was felt that the above two Madras Acts which contained provisions providing for appointment to village offices on hereditary basis we~ violative of Article 16 of ihe Constitution in view of the pronouncement of this Court in Gazula Dasqratha Rama Rao's case (supra), ·the State Legislature pass· ed the Madras Proprietory· Estates' Village Service and the Madras Hereditary Village Offices (Repeal) Act, 1968 (Madras Act No.20 of 1968) repealing the above two statutes viz. the Madras Act )'fo. II of 1894 and the Madras Act No. III of 1895. The said Act was brought into force with effect from December l, 1968. It extended to the whole of the State of Madras, except the Kanyakumari district and the Shencottah taluk of the Tirunelveli district (vide section 1 (2) of the Madras Act No. 20 of 1968). Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of that Act, however, provided that every holder of a village, offiice, appointed under the Acts r~pealed by it would, notwithstanding the repeal continue to bold office subject to such rules as may be made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Section 3 of that Act directed that any vacancy arising after the date of the commencement of that Act in the village office referred to in sub· section (3).. of section 2 thereof should 1 be filled up in accordance with the provisions of the Rules made under the proviso. to Arti· cle 309 of the Constitution. On December 1, 1968, the Governor of Tamil Nadu promulgated a Rule under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution providing that "the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue applicable to non hereditary village offices shall apply to every holder of a village office to which the Madras' Proprietary Estates Village Service Act, 1894 (Madras Act No. II of 1894) or the Ma.;Iras Hereditary Village Offices. Act, 1895 (Madras Act No. III. of 1895) was applicable immediately before the !st day of December, I 968" on which date the Madras Act No. 20. of 1968 came into force. Pursuant to ' section 3 of the Madras Act No. 20 of 1968, the Governor of Tainil Nadu A B c D E F G H A B c • D E F G H 638 SUPREME COUltT REPORTS (19821 3 s.c.ll. promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution the TamiJ Nadu Village officers Servii;e Rules, 1970 providing for the constitutioμ of the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service consisting of (i) village headman, additional village headm11n, (ii) village karnam, additional village karnam and (iii) tal11yari and nirganti and the method of recruitment to the said posts~ The said Rules came into force on December I 6, 1970 and they extended to the whole of the· State of Tamil Nae a village officer, a village clerk and a village peon in respect of each such enlarged village panchayat and on appointment to these offices, the holders of village offices appointed under the two repealed statutes and the Board's Standing Orders should be removed and the former village offices should be abolished since the Commission felt that "the administration at the grass-root level, provided by the present generation of village officers with feudal traditions, is inconsistent· with the egalitarian principles aimed at in our democratic constitution". The Commission further felt that "the reform of village administration has high priority, as it would benefit the whole mass of rural population." The Commission, however, took note of the fact in paragraph 2. rI of its Report that the Government had, in the recent years, attempted to remedy the situation by repealing the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 and by framins a]set .. A. B c D I F G H A B c D E F G H 64() SUPREME COURT REl>ORTS (19.821 3 11.c.a. ' of new service rules for village establishment under· Article 309 of the Constitution. But it was of the opinion that the said Rules, however, did !lot go far enough as they were not applicable to the existing set of village officers. It was of the view that full-time officers could be expected to service a much larger area than the existing villages or groups of v!llages and such regroupin11 ofvillages into larger groups had to be done carefully taking into account lqcal conditions such as compactness of the grjlup, easy inter· communications, nature of land, nu~ber of h~ldings etc. The Commission, however, was of the view that such of those among the existing village headmen and karnams, who had passed th1: S.S.L.C. Examfoation might be considered for the posts of the village officers and village clerks on their past performance. Similarly as regards village officers working in the Kanyakumari district and the Shencottah taluk of the· Tirunel· veli district which came over to the State of Tamil Nadu from Kerala in I 956 on the reorganisation of States, the CommissiQll observed that most of the village officers of those trans· ferred territories who were qualified and full·time Government servants should be absorbed in the new set up as envisaged by the Commission; On May 17,1975, the Governor of Tamil Nadu. promulgated the Tami) Nadu Village Officers (appointed under B.S. Os) Service Rules, 1974 under the proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution in respect of the village officers appointed prior to December 16, 1970. The above Rules were, however, kept in abeyance by an order made on July 1, 1975 on receipt of representations from the village' officers in regard to the fixation of the age of superannuation at 55 years. On August 24, 1977, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu announced on the floor of the Legislative Assembly that the Government proposed to set up a Committee to . 1:xamine whether the posts of karnams could be dispensed with. Thereafter on October 9,1978, ihe Tamil Nadn Village Officers (appointed under B.S.Os) Service Rules, 1978 were issued _fixing the age of retirement of the village officers at 60 years. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the said R.ules stated that the said Rules would apply to all village officers holding the posts of village headman or additional . village headman, village karnam or additional village karnam, talay ari, vetti or nirganti either permanently or temporarily on December 16, 1970 provided that at the time of their appointment, they were qualified under the Board's Standing Orders. The Government thought that the _said Rules . would be applicable to all village officers who were holding village offices on December_ 16,1970 refer· , • '· ) K. RAIENDRAN v. TAMIL NADU (Venkataramiah, J.) 641 red to in Rule I (2). But some of the holders of the village :offices who had been appointed under the Madras Act No. III of 1895 prior to the decision of this Court in Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao's case (supra) which as rendered on December 6, 1960, filed writ petitions on the file of the High Court of Madras stating that the Tamil Nadu Village Officers (appointed under the B.S.Os) .Service Rules, 1978 which fixed the age of superannuation of village officers. at 60 years were not applicable to them since on a true construction of the said Rules, they were inapplicable to them. The High Court of Madras11llowed the said writ petitions by its judgment ·dated August 18, 1980 holding: "We have already extracted sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of the rules. That rule expressly states that the rules will apply to village officers, who, at the time of their appointment, were qualified under the Board's Standing Orders applicable to them and .their appoi!'.ltment had been made by the authority competent under the Board' S• Standing Orders. In respect of these petitioners,· who were appointed under the· provisions· of Madras Act 3 of 1895 before 6th December, 1960, there was no question of their being qualified to be appointed to the village office under the Board's Standing Orders applicable to them, and their qualifications and . appointment rested solely on the pro'visions contained in Section lO of the Act. Consequently the petitioners herein. will not answer the description contained in sub'.rule (2) of rule (I) of the rules. If they do not answer the description contained in sub-rule (2) of rules, the rules are not applicable tothem and therefore, they can not be required to retire under rule 4 (I} of the ru!es.". · ,• ··- It would appear that some of the other village officers to whom the said Rules had been made"applicable had also filed writ petitions on the file of the High Court questioning the validity of the Rules on the ground that the said Rqles made a discrimination betw6en them and the ' village officers who were holding office prior to December 16,1970 to whom the said Rules were held to be inapplicable by the judgment of the High Court delivered on August 18, 1980 and those petilions were posted for hearing during the first week 'of December, 1980. Before the said petitions were taken up for hearing the Governor of Tamil Nadu issued the Ordinance on November 13, 1980 abolishing the posts of part-time village officers in,the State of Tamil Nadu. Immediately after the promulagation of the Ordinance; steps were taken to take posses· sion .of all the records with the village officers who were holding pJfices on that day and. to replac~ tl!em by'officers appoillted under . ' . . - ~ " A B c 0 F G H A B c D E F G H 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I I 982] 3 S.C.R. S•ection 14 of the ordinance. Immediately after the promulgation of the said Ordinance, some of the village officers' who were affected by it questioned its validity before this Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 5880•82 of 1980 and 5921 of 1980. The other connected writ petitions came to be filed thereafter. fa the meanwhile the Tamil Nadu State Legislature pdssed the Act which is impugned in these petitions replacing the Ordinance. The petitioners have challenged in these writ petitions the Act also by seeking appropriate amendment of their petitions. The broad features of the Act are these: The object of the Act is set out in its preamble. Because the State Government was of the opinion 'that the system of part-time village officers was outmoded and did not fit in with the modern needs of village administration and the State Government had after careful consideration taken . a policy decision to abolish all the posts of part-time village officers on grounds of admillistrative necessity and to introduce a system of whole-time officers to be incharge of village admininistration, the Act came to be enacted• with effect from November 14, 1980 in the place of the Ordinance.