( 1 ) THE petitioner is a village accountant who was continued under Section 16 (2) of the mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964. He was a village accountant of Kadugodi village in hosakote Taluk, Bangalore District. On February 12, 1973, the Tahsildar, Hosakole, issued a memo to Respondent 2 t'himmaish posting him to work as village accountant of Kadugodi and directing him to take charge of the post of the village accountant of Kadugodi from the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the said memo. ( 2 ) THE contention ot Sri K. Rama Jois, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being a village accountant continued under s. 16 (2) of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964, he is entitled to continue in that post until another person is appointed as village accountant of kadugodi village by the Dy. Commissioner under sub-sec. (1) of S. 16. It was submitted that as Respondent 2 was not appointed by the Deputy commissioner as village accountant of Kadugodi vilalge he is not entitled to displace the petitioner who is continuing as village, accountant under section 16 (2 ). ( 3 ) SRI Shantaraju the learned Government Pleader was not able to place before me any order of the Deputy Commissioner appointing Respondent 2 as village accountant of Kadugodi village. It was submitted by him that there is a general order appointing several persons as village accountants in which Respondent 2 has been shown as a Reserve Candidate, and that the Tahsildar has only issued posting orders to the said thimmiah (Respondent 2 ). ( 4 ) THE appointment contemplated by S. 16 is appointment by the deputy Commissioner. The posting of a candidate as village accountant to a particular place is also part of the appointment under S. 16 (1) of the Act which had to be made by the Deputy Commissioner himself. Admittedly the posting order made in favour of Respondent 2 was not made by the Deputy Commissioner, and therefore he cannot be regarded as one who is appointed by the Deputy Commissioner under S. 16 (1) of the Act. It is only a person appointed under S. 16 (1) of the Act by the deputy Commissioner that can displace the village accountant continued under S. 16 (2 ). It is only a person appointed under S. 16 (1) of the Act by the deputy Commissioner that can displace the village accountant continued under S. 16 (2 ). Hence, Shri Rama Jois is right in his contention that respondent 2 cannot, on the strength of the memo issued to him by the tahsildar, Hosakote, take charge of the post of village accountant hosakote from the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT was contended by Shri Shantaraju the learned High Court government Pleader appearing for the first respondent that even before respondent 2 was posted as village accountant of Kadugodi, one Sathyanarayana murthy was appointed as village accountant of Kadugodi by the deputy Commissioner on August 26 1972, and the said candidate joined duty on September 9, 1972, and thereafter absented himself from September 26, 1972. On the basis of these assertions made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the argument constructed by Shri shantaraju was that the right of the petitioner to continue to hold the office under S. 16 (2) came to an end when the Deputy Commissioner appointed Sathyanarayana Murthy as village accountant of Kadugodi village. ( 6 ) IF Sathyanarayana Murthy who was appointed by the Deputy commissioner as village accountant of Kadugodi village, had joined duty on September 8, 1972, and taken charge from the petitioner, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner would have lost his right to continue in office under S. 16 (2) of the Act, on and from 8th September 1972. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, specific assertion is made to the effect that Sathyanarayana Murthy appointed by the Deputy Commsisioner as village accountant of Kadugodi village never reported for duty and that he never came to Kadugodi to take charge from the, petitioner. It is further asserted that Sathyanarayana Murthy actually joined service with a Society at Anekal as Supervisor from September 9, 1972. There are no clear averments made by the first respondent to the effect that Sathyanarayana Murthy reported to duty at Kadugodi village or that he asked the petitioner to hand over charge to him. It appears that sathyanarayana Murthy only reported before the Tahsildar at Hosakote who directed Sathyanarayana Murthy to report to duty at Kadugodi. The circumstances in this case clearly indicate that Sathyanarayana Murthy never reported to duty at Kadugodi village. It appears that sathyanarayana Murthy only reported before the Tahsildar at Hosakote who directed Sathyanarayana Murthy to report to duty at Kadugodi. The circumstances in this case clearly indicate that Sathyanarayana Murthy never reported to duty at Kadugodi village. If Sathyanarayana Murthy had reported to duty at Kadugodi village and thereafter absented himself from duty on September 6, 1972, it would be difficult to understand how the petitioner could continue to discharge duty as village accountant of kadugodi village after 9th September 1972. That the petitioner continued in charge would become evident from the impugned memo issued by the tahsildar to the second respondent Thimmiah that the latter should take charge from the petitioner who has been described in the memo as Shanbhog of Kadugodi village. The wordings of the impugned memo itself would establish that the petitioner was holding the post of Shanbhog or village accountant of Kadugodi village even on February 12, 1973 on which date the memo was issued. This intrinsic material clearly supports the case of the petitioner that Sathyanarayana Murthy never came to take charge of the office of village accountant of Kadugodi village. ( 7 ) BUT it was contended by Shri Shantharaju that even if Sathyanarayana Murthy did not report to duty at Kadugodi village, the right of the petitioner to continue in office under S. 16 (2) came to an end immediately the Deputy Commissioner made an order appointing Sathyanarayana Murthy as village accountant of Kadugodi village under S. 16 (1) of the Act. The passing of an order of appointment is a unilateral act. Unless and until that order of appointment is accepted and the appointee joins duty, the appointment does not become complete. It is only when the appointee reports to duty that the appointment becomes complete, which alone can have the effect of displacing a, village accountant continued under S. 16 (2) of the Act. I, therefore, repel the contention of Shri shantharaju that by the, mere passing of an order by the Deputy Commissioner, the right of the petitioner to continue in the post came to an end. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the rule is made absolute and the impugned memo of the Tahsildar of Hosakote dt. February 12, 1973 is quashed. No costs. --- *** --- .