IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 19467 of 2008 Between: 1 Laxmiah S/o.Ramulu Vibhalapuram Village Mothe Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 S.K.Saidulu S/o.Hussain Hussainabad Village Mothe Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 D.Venkateshwarlu S/o.Pullaiah Gopalapuram Village, Mothe Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 Bandari Lalaiah S/o.Kankaiah Neredvaye Village, Mothe Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5 Damarla Guru Swamy S/o.Chinna Narsaiah Vibhalapuram Village, Mothe Mandal, Nalgonda District. 6 Sheik Chinna Kasim S/o.Raj Mohammed Mamidla Gudem Village, Mothe Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office Mothe Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet Division, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 3 The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (V.O.) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 implement the Govt. Memo. No. 91991/Vo.I/92-5, dt. 23.1.96 on the file of 4th Respondent strictly and implement the Votabandi System and consequently declare the inaction of the Respondents No.1 and 2 in implementing the Votabandi System as per the Govt. Memo No.91991/Vo.I/92-5, dt. 23.1.96 on the file of 4th respondent as bad in law and violative of directions of Hon'ble High Court in this regard, in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 19467 of 2008 30-06-2009 Oral Order: The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to implement the Government Memo No. 91991/Vo.I./92-5 dated 23-01-1996 and the ‘Votabandi System’. By the said Memo, which does not appear to be an executive order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, but an interoffice Memo, a clarification appears to have been issued that the ‘Rotation System’ (Votabandi System) is a local practice which was recognized by the authorities for the purpose of payment of salaries to the Village Servants, who actually perform duty and to the other shareholders of that rotational system and that the District Collectors should implement the Votabandi System in case of Seth Sindhies and Neerudies. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is categorically asserted that the erstwhile practice of availing the services of Nerrudies and Sethsindies through the Votabandi System stood abolished with the issuance of the statutory rules viz., The Andhra Pradesh Village Servants Service Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’) under which ‘Village Servant’ means any person who holds any of the Village Offices of Neeraganti, Neeradi, Vetti, Kavalkar, Toti, Talayari, Tandalgar and Sethsindhi or any such village office by whatever designation it may be locally known; and that the appointments under these Rules are governed by the qualifications set out in Rule 9 of the Rules. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were appointed or are deemed to have been appointed as Village Servants under the provisions of the Rules. At any rate, an interoffice Memo dated 23-01-1996 issued by the Secretary to the Government cannot override the statutory rules issued in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 30-06-2009 Pvks