Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6(1) of the Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895 and the appointment of respondent 4 as Village Munsif of Peravalipalem. The dispute arose after the bifurcation of village Peravali in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh into two villages, Peravali and Peravalipalem, by an order of the Board of Revenue dated August 25, 1956. Under Section 6(1) of the Act, all hereditary village offices of the original village ceased to exist and new offices were created for the two villages. For the post of Village Munsif of Peravalipalem, applications were invited. The Revenue Divisional Officer initially appointed the petitioner on October 18, 1956. However, on appeal, the Collector set aside that order on April 1, 1957 and appointed respondent 4, who was the son of the last Village Munsif of the undivided Peravali, relying on the hereditary principle in Section 6(1). The Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioner's further appeal on April 24, 1958, affirming the Collector's order. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court, contending that the office of Village Munsif is an office under the State and that the orders discriminated against him on the ground of descent only, violating Article 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution. He sought a declaration that Section 6(1) of the Act was void under Article 13(1). The respondents argued that the office of Village Munsif, being of customary origin, was not an office under the State and that hereditary officeholders had a pre-existing right to emoluments enforceable by suit, thus excluding Article 16. The Court examined the scheme of the Act and held that the office of Village Munsif was an office under the State within the meaning of Article 16. It further held that a person entitled to a hereditary office under Section 6(1) did not have a pre-existing right to property independent of the office, and therefore Article 16 applied. The Court concluded that Section 6(1) embodied a principle of discrimination on the ground of descent only, contravening Article 16(2) of the Constitution, and was therefore void. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the orders appointing respondent 4 as Village Munsif were quashed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment - Village Munsif office is an office under State - Constitution of India, Article 16(1), 16(2) - The office of Village Munsif under Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895 is an office under the State for purposes of Article 16 because it is a public office with emoluments granted by State and regulated by law; even if it has customary origins, it is now a state office. Held that Article 16 applies to hereditary village offices. B) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - No pre-existing property right exempts hereditary office from Article 16 - Constitution of India, Article 16 - A person entitled to a hereditary village office under Section 6(1) of Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895 does not have a pre-existing right to the emoluments of the office independent of the office itself; such office is subject to equal opportunity guarantee. Held that Article 16 applies, and no exemption exists. C) Constitutional Law - Equality of Opportunity - Selection solely on descent violates Article 16(2) - Constitution of India, Article 16(2), 13(1); Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895, Section 6(1) - Section 6(1) of Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895, which directs Collector to select from families of last holders, embodies discrimination on ground of descent only; this contravenes Article 16(2) and is void under Article 13(1). Held that the impugned orders appointing respondent 4 as Village Munsif must be quashed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether office of Village Munsif is an office under State under Article 16; whether Section 6(1) of Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895 violates Article 16(2) by permitting selection on hereditary descent; whether a person entitled to hereditary office has a pre-existing right to property excluding application of Article 16.
Final Decision
Petition allowed; Section 6(1) of Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895 declared void as it embodied discrimination on ground of descent only in contravention of Article 16(2) of Constitution; orders appointing respondent 4 as Village Munsif of Peravalipalem were quashed.
Law Points
- Article 16 of Constitution applies to village offices under State
- selection on ground of descent only violates equality of opportunity
- no pre-existing right to emoluments exempts hereditary office from Article 16
- Section 6(1) of Madras Hereditary Village-Offices Act
- 1895 void for discrimination
