NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner states that he was working as a Village Acrounant belonging to a Baravardar family on the abolition of Village Office the mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, that he applied for as a Village Accountant under the provisions of the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Village Accountants (Cadre and recruitment) Rules, 1961, that he was selected pursuant thereto in 1966, that thereafter he worked for some time as Secretary of the Panchayat that he was actually appointed as Village Accountant about the end of the year 1969 and underwent training but that by an order dt. 6th May, 1970, he has been relieved from office on the ground that he had not passed the SSLC. Examination. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claims that the passing of the SSLC. Examination in his case is unnecessary because he is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Rule 10 (1) of the Recruitment Rules mentioned above. ( 3 ) THE petitioner therefore contends that the order relieving him from office is illegal and should be quashed. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the State Government, a counter-affidavit was filed by N. J. E. Britto, Under Secretary to the Government in Revenue department, stating that the petitioner's statement to the effect that he was working as a Village Accountant on the coming into force of the Village offices Abolition Act, is false, that he was also not holding any such post at the commencement of the Recruitment Rules mentioned above, that therefore he is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to rule 10 (1) thereof and that it was necessary for him to have passed the sslc. Examination, the failure to do which disentitles the petitioner from claiming the appointment. With reference to the order of appointment depended upon by the petitioner it is stated that the said order expressly required the petitioner to produce his SSLC. Certificate and that the petitioner has failed to do so. Examination, the failure to do which disentitles the petitioner from claiming the appointment. With reference to the order of appointment depended upon by the petitioner it is stated that the said order expressly required the petitioner to produce his SSLC. Certificate and that the petitioner has failed to do so. ( 5 ) AS the question whether the petitioner was holding a. village office of Shanbhogue (called Karnam in Kollegal Taluk in which the petitioner's village Belathur is situated) was the subject of assertion by him in his affidavit and of direct denial in the affidavit of the Under Secretary to Government and as the entire matter depended upon a clear determination of the said fact, we thought it proper to adjourn the hearing of the writ petition to enable both sides to file affidavits of persons with personal knowledge. Such further affidavit was first filed on behalf of the government deponent whereof is one S. Siddalingaiah, Tahsildar of Kollegal. He has attached to his affidavit the statements recorded by him of both the petitioner and his father Subba Rao. The effect of these statements is that the petitioner's father Subba Rao was working as Shanbhogue till 1st September 1970 when he went on leave, since when the petitioner is acting in his place. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit in which he says that it was objectionable procedure on the part of the tahsildar to have sent for him and his father to make statements and that they were coerced to make those statements. He, however, adds in para 3:" The fact remains that my father was a Barawardar and I, as the son remaining with him in the joint Barawardar family, was mostly writing the accounts and performing the important duties of the shanbhogue office. " ( 6 ) THE admitted fact, therefore, is that it was the petitioner's father subba Rao who was the hereditary Karnam of Belathur village at the time the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act came into force and also at the commencement of the Mysore General Services (Revenue Sub-ordinal branch) Village Accountants (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules. ( 7 ) MR. " ( 6 ) THE admitted fact, therefore, is that it was the petitioner's father subba Rao who was the hereditary Karnam of Belathur village at the time the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act came into force and also at the commencement of the Mysore General Services (Revenue Sub-ordinal branch) Village Accountants (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules. ( 7 ) MR. Venkataranga Iyengar, however, states that the expression "persons holding the office of a Village Accountant" occurring in S. 16 (2) of the Mysore Land Revenue Act and the expression "persons holding the posts of Village Officers" occurring in Rule 10 of the Recruitment Rules mentioned above must be regarded as conveying, the same meaning and that the said meaning is not different from the meaning assigned to the expression "holder of a village office" in the definition in clause (g) of sec. 2 (1) of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, which is "a person having an interest in a village office under an existing law relating to such office. In the case of Barawardar families, Mr. Venkataranga lyengar says, all persons of such families must be regarded as holders and that is the reason why the Mysore Land Revenue Act uses the plural persons' in sub-section (2) of Section 16. ( 8 ) THERE are more reasons than one why this contention cannot be accepted. In the first place, the Recruitment Rules are made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and need not therefore necessarily be governed by the definition contained in the Mysore Village Offices abolition Act. Even if one should look at the definition, as pointed out by this Court in the case of Ramachandra Rao v. Deputy Commissioner of gulbarga, (1971) 2 Mys. L. J. 1. the holder is one who had already acquired the right to hold the office by hereditary succession before the coming into force of the myscre Land Revenue Act and does not and cannot include a person who claims succession subsequently. Indeed to claim to be a holder by virtue of an interest, which entitles him by hereditary succession to get into the office, would clearly be opposed to Art. 16 of the Constitution of India. Indeed to claim to be a holder by virtue of an interest, which entitles him by hereditary succession to get into the office, would clearly be opposed to Art. 16 of the Constitution of India. Although there is possibility of plurality of persons having acquired the right to hold the office before the commencement of the Land Revenue act as in the case of Ramachandra Rao (1) cited above, there is no such possibility under the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act which applies to Kollegal Taluk and which is one of the existing laws referred to in S. 2, (1) (g) of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act. S. 10 of the Madras act deals with the question of filling up of vacancies by hereditary succession. Sub-sec. (1) thereof deals with disqualifications and sub-sec. (2) states that" Succession shall devolve on a single heir according to the general custom and rule of primogeniture governing succession to impartible zamindaris in Southern India. "hence, there could only be a single person who can be described as a holder of the office of Karnam. Such single person in the present case is subba Rao and not his son, the petitioner, so long as Subba Rao is alive ( 9 ) IT follows therefore that the petitioner is not a person who can claim the benefit of the proviso to Rule 10 (1) of the Recruitment Rules mentioned above. He cannot therefore claim appointment under it but should possess the qualification of having passed the SSLC. Examination before he can be recruited or appointed. ( 10 ) MR. Venkataranga Iyengar, in the course of the arguments has raised the further contention that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the principle of estoppel against the Government because he had been not only selected but also appointed. We do not think, however, that he can do so successfully because, being a resident of Kollegal and son of a hereditary Karnam, he cannot be heard to say that he was misled into thinking that he could be regarded as a holder when his father, the actual holder is alive; and secondly, the order of appointment is expressly made subject to certain conditions, one of which is that he should produce a certificate in proof of his having passed the SSLC. Examination which be has failed to do. Examination which be has failed to do. Copies of Certificates of 1963, which he had produced along with his application, show that he had failed at the said Examination. ( 11 ) THE Writ Petition is there fore dismissed. --- *** --- .