IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2444 of 2000 Between: G.Siddi Ramulu S/o.Nagaiah R/o.Deni Kanan (V), Tadwai Mandal Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Principal Secretary to Govt. of A.P., Revenue (VO) Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Land Revenue Hyderabad, A.P. 3 The District Collector Nizamabad, Nizamabad District 4 The Revenue Divnl. Officer Kamareddy, R.D.O., Nizamabad District 5 The A.P.Administrative Tribunal rep.by its Registrar Hyderabad ....RESPONDENTS 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 issue the Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or direction, declaring the orders Dt.23/8/93 passed in Memo No.593/VOI/93-6 on the ﬁle of the 1st Respondent order Dt. 25/3/92 passed in Procs. No. C4/2696/92 On the ﬁle of the 3rd Respondent, order Dt. 25/11/92 passed in Procs. No. A3/2563/92 on the ﬁle of the 2nd Respondent and the order dt. 12/7/99 passed in O.A. No. 921/94 on the ﬁle of the 5th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Village Administrative Oﬃcer in Kamareddy II VAO or at any other available vacancy award costs and pass such other order or orders are deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2444 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: (per HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition is ﬁled challenging the Order dated 12-7-1999 passed in O.A.No.921 of 1994 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. The said O.A. was ﬁled by the petitioner herein seeking to set aside the Memo dated 23-8-1993 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the Order dated 25-11-1992 of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and also the Proceedings dated 25-3-1992 of the District Collector, Nizamabad as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to appoint him as Village Administrative Oﬃcer of Demi Kaman Group of village, Tadwai Mandal, Nizamabad District. It was the case of the petitioner that he worked as Village Oﬃcer (Patwari) for Demi Kaman village, Tadwai Mandal, Nizamabad District. In the year 1984, Government of Andhra Pradesh abolished the Village Oﬃcers’ system and as such, he was without any employment. While so, the State Government took a policy decision to appoint the eligible erstwhile Village Oﬃcers as Village Administrative Oﬃcers on a consolidated pay of Rs.600/- per month. Thereafter, 2nd respondent issued a Notiﬁcation dated 25-12-1991 inviting applications from eligible erstwhile Village Oﬃcers in Nizamabad District; pursuant to which, he applied for the post of Village Administrative Oﬃcer on 27-12-1991. He satisﬁed the eligibility criteria and he was the only person, who appeared for interview to the post of V.A.O. for Demi Kaman Group of villages. However, respondent No.4 did not pass any Orders. Therefore, he approached the 3rd respondent by way of an appeal and the 3rd respondent by an Order dated 25-3-1992 rejected the appeal on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case and suﬀered conviction for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 504 and 290 IPC and sentenced to pay ﬁne of Rs.50/- and Rs.30/- respectively and declared him disqualiﬁed under Rule 8(vi) of the A.P. Village Administrative Oﬃcers’ Service Rules. Questioning the said Order, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.No.2023 of 1992, which was disposed of on 7-4-1992 directing him to ﬁle an appeal before the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent, who, by an Order dated 25-11-1992 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred revision before the 1st respondent-Government. Respondent No.1 by an Order dated 23-8- 1992 rejected the revision. Challenging the same, he ﬁled the present O.A.No.921 of 1994 stating that though he was convicted by the criminal court, the said conviction is not with regard to involvement in moral turpitude and, therefore, it does not attract the disqualiﬁcation under Rule 8(vi) of the said Rules. Respondent No.4 ﬁled a counter before the Tribunal stating inter alia that the petitioner-applicant was convicted by the criminal court for the oﬀences involving moral turpitude i.e. the oﬀences punishable under Sections 504 and 290 IPC and sentenced to pay ﬁne of Rs.50/- and Rs.30/- respectively and as such, he is not entitled to be considered for appointment as Village Administrative Oﬃcer as per the Rules. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, held that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment as Village Administrative Oﬃcer as he was involved in the oﬀences relating to moral turpitude and thus dismissed the O.A. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard both sides and perused the material made available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was convicted for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 509 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay ﬁne of Rs.50/- and Rs.30/- respectively. Section 504 of IPC deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, while Section 290 IPC deals with punishment for public nuisance. It is settled proposition of law that ‘moral turpitude’ is an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in private and social duties, which a man owes to his fellow men or society. The oﬀences under Sections 509 and 290 IPC come under the category of ‘moral turpitude’. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the conviction of the petitioner is not with regard to involvement of moral turpitude cannot be accepted. Under Rule 8(1)(vi) of the A.P. Village Administrative Oﬃcers Service Rules,1990, if an erstwhile Village Oﬃcer is punished by any criminal court involving moral turpitude, he is not eligible for being appointed to the post of Village Administrative Officer. Under those circumstances, the 4th respondent did not appoint the petitioner as V.A.O. and the 3 rd respondent rightly rejected the appeal ﬁled thereagainst and the same was correctly upheld by respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 to 4 concurrently found that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment to the post of V.A.O. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly appreciated the facts and law and upheld the Orders passed by respondents 1 to 3. That apart, the posts of Village Administrative Oﬃcers have since been abolished. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the Order passed by the Tribunal, warranting our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) 24th July, 2008 ________________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) prk