D. Nagaraja Etc Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
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 time of recruitment and working as Panchayat Secretaries who-(a) have passed the Middle School examination or any other examination declared as equivalent thereto by the State Government; and(b) have put in not less than 10 years of service as Panchayat Secretaries as the case may be if sufficient number of eligible persons are not available under (ii);(c) are not more than 50 years of age as on 1st April, 1967;(iv) xx xx xx(v) others, 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 State Government as equivalent thereto.(3) The limit for appointment under sub- rule (1) shall be-(i) 33 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 on 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 selection--(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 (Dire ct Recruitment 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 said list."4. Pursuant to the 1970 Rules, applications were invited by the 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 No. 1871 of 11972 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 published 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 Committee. Some of the candidates thus selected 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 the 1970 Rules on the ground that they were violativ e of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, (ii) the selection and appointment of respondents 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 section 16(2) of the Act. The writ petitions having been dismissed by the High Court as stated above., the appellants have come up in 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 terms 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 well established 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. Shankanarayana &Ors. v. State of Mysore (supra), and the first preference in the matter of appointment of 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 of, Articles 4 an d 16 of the Constitution which merely forbid improper or invidious distinctions by conferring rights or privileges upon a class of 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 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.5.
0[ds]It is well settled that though Article 226 of the Constitution in terms 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 well established 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. Shankanarayana &Ors. v. State of Mysore (supra), and the first preference in the matter of appointment of 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 of, Articles 4 an d 16 of the Constitution which merely forbid improper or invidious distinctions by conferring rights or privileges upon a class of 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 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.
### Instruction:
Conjecture the end result of the case (acceptance (1) or non-acceptance (0) of the appeal), followed by a detailed explanation using crucial sentences from the case proceeding.

### Input:
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 time of recruitment and working as Panchayat Secretaries who-(a) have passed the Middle School examination or any other examination declared as equivalent thereto by the State Government; and(b) have put in not less than 10 years of service as Panchayat Secretaries as the case may be if sufficient number of eligible persons are not available under (ii);(c) are not more than 50 years of age as on 1st April, 1967;(iv) xx xx xx(v) others, 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 State Government as equivalent thereto.(3) The limit for appointment under sub- rule (1) shall be-(i) 33 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 on 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 selection--(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 (Dire ct Recruitment 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 said list."4. Pursuant to the 1970 Rules, applications were invited by the 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 No. 1871 of 11972 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 published 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 Committee. Some of the candidates thus selected 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 the 1970 Rules on the ground that they were violativ e of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, (ii) the selection and appointment of respondents 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 section 16(2) of the Act. The writ petitions having been dismissed by the High Court as stated above., the appellants have come up in 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 terms 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 well established 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. Shankanarayana &Ors. v. State of Mysore (supra), and the first preference in the matter of appointment of 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 of, Articles 4 an d 16 of the Constitution which merely forbid improper or invidious distinctions by conferring rights or privileges upon a class of 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 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.5.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
It is well settled that though Article 226 of the Constitution in terms 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 well established 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. Shankanarayana &Ors. v. State of Mysore (supra), and the first preference in the matter of appointment of 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 of, Articles 4 an d 16 of the Constitution which merely forbid improper or invidious distinctions by conferring rights or privileges upon a class of 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 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.
