CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are from the common order of Venkatararniah, J, in WPs. 1682 and 1683 of 1974. The appellants were the respective petitioners therein. ( 2 ) THE appellants were hereditary Shanbogues. When the hereditary village offices were abolished under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition act, 1961, they were continued as Village Accountants under sub- sec (2) of Sec. 16 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). When new Village Accountants were appointed under sub-sec (1) of S. 16 of the Act to the villages in which the appellants were so continued as Village Accountants, the Tahsildar of Kunigal Taluk directed the appellants to hand over charge of their offices to the newly appointed Village Accountants. The appellants challenged in the writ petitions that direction of the Tahsildar. ( 3 ) THE learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions following his earlier decision in Y. Gundu Rao v. State of Karnataka,. WP, 510/74. dt ,13-3-1974. in which the facts were similar. ( 4 ) IN these two appeals Mr. K. S. Desai, learned Counsel tor the appellants, contended that the termination of the appellants was not 'in accordance with the requirement of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Temporary Service Rules) and that hence such termination was invalid. ( 5 ) IN WP. 516 of 1974 the learned Single Judge held that the Temporary Service Rules had no application to Village Accountants who had been continued under S. 16 (2) of the Act. The reasoning of the learned single judge is briefly as follows: Erstwhile hereditary Village Accountants whose services have been continued under S. 16 (2) of the Act, were not appointed under any executive order and hence cannot be regarded as temporary Govt servants. Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules comes into operation only when an action is taken in law as against a temporary govt servant. An act in law is different from an act of law. Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules comes into operation only when an action is taken in law as against a temporary govt servant. An act in law is different from an act of law. The termination of the service of a Village Accountant who has been continued under s. 16 (2) of the Act, is brought about statutorily on the appointment of a village Accountant under S. 16 (1) and no action on the part of the executive is called for to terminate the service of the person holding the post under S. 16 (2 ). Hence, Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules is clearly inapplicable to termination of the service of Village Accountants under 8. 16 (2) of the Act. So runs the reasoning of the learned single Judge. ( 6 ) WE agree with the learned single Judge that the termination of services of a Village Accountant who had been continued under S. 16 (2), is brought about not by any action on the part cf authorities, but by the opeation of S. 16 (2) itself and that hence Rule 5 of the Temporary Services rules has no application to such statutory termination of service. ( 7 ) THERE is also one other reason why Rule 5 cf the Temporary Service rules cannot apply to termination of services of Village Accountants brought about by the appointment of a Village Accountant under S. 16 (1) of the Act. The proviso to Art. 309 of the Constn provides that in the case of services and posts in connection with, the affairs of the State, it shall be competent for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct to make Rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behilf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate legislature under that Article and that any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act. Hence the rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 regulating recruitment and conditions of service of civil servants, are subject to the previsions of any Act of appropriate legislature. Hence the rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 regulating recruitment and conditions of service of civil servants, are subject to the previsions of any Act of appropriate legislature. S. 16 of the Act provides that the continuance of a person holding the office of Village Accountant immediately prior to the commencement of the Act, is only till the appointment of another person under 8. 16 (1 ). S. 16 (2) dees net provide for issue of any notice before terminating the services of such person consequent upon the appointment of another person to that office under Section 16 (1 ). Hence such termination is not dependent on issue of notice or payment of any salary in lieu of such notice. When there is a specific provision in the Act that the services of a Vllage Accountant continued under s. 16 (2), shall come to an end on the appointment of another person under s. 16 (1), it is clear that Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules has no application to such termination of service. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Desai sought to derive support from the decision of divn. Bench of this Court in Hanumappa v. Deputy Commr, Raichur, WP. 1825/72 dt. 10/27-l972 those cases related to termination of the services of Panchayat Secretaries and not of Village Accountants tinder S. 16 (2) of the Act, though those panchayat Secretaries were also Village Acrountants. In those cases the question whether the Temporary Service Rules were applicable to persons who were continued as Village Accountants under S. 16 (2) of the Act, did not arise for consideration. Hence that decision has no application to the present case. ( 9 ) MR. Desai next relied on another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mude Gowda v State of Mysore ,. WP. 962/73 dt. 29-6-1973. There. the petitioner had been appointed as Gumasta Patel by an order of 'he Assistant Commissioner dated 4-11-1967. TVe Tshsildar had directed another person to take chsrge of the office of Patel from then petitioner. The Division Bench heid that the Tahsildar could not ask the petitioner to hand over charge of the Patel office without first terminating the services of the petitioner after giving him notices. TVe Tshsildar had directed another person to take chsrge of the office of Patel from then petitioner. The Division Bench heid that the Tahsildar could not ask the petitioner to hand over charge of the Patel office without first terminating the services of the petitioner after giving him notices. The facts of that case are elearly distinguishable from those of the present cases Inasmuch as the petitioner therein had not been continued as a village Accountant under S. 16 (2) of the Act. but had keen appointed as Gumasta Patel under an express order of the Assistant Commissioner and his services were not sought to be terminated under S. 16 (2) on the appointment as a Village Accountant underr S. 16 (1) of the Act. That decision also cannot be of any assistance to Mr. Desai. ( 10 ) HOWEVER. Mr. Desai submitted that the appellants in WA. No. 309 of 1974 had also been appointed as Secretary of the Panchayat of Kaggeri village, that the post held hv him was a civil post and that termination of his services from that post attracted R. 5 of the Temporary Service rules. But. this plea had not been taken in the writ petition. Hence we canrot permit in appeal any contention based on such new plea. We confine ourselves to the question whether termination of his services as Village accountant was valid. ( 11 ) WE do not find any good reason to dissent from the order ef the learned single Judge. Hence, we dismiss these two appeals, but without costs. ( 12 ) MR. Desai submitted that the appellants have not been paid their salaries since the year 1970. If his averment is true, it is unfortunate that even after getting the work from them they have not been paid their salaries for such a long time and we do hope that the authorities would redrew the grievance of the appellants without putting them to the necessity of taking separate legal proceedings for recovery of their salaries. --- *** --- .