S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby, and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE sole question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether an employee of the State can engage in the trade of liquor? ( 3 ) THE factual matrix of the case is that one Late Gompa Narsinga Rao was issued il-24 licence under the A. P. Excise Act to run a liquor shop at Pendurthi, visakhapatnam District in the name and style of M/s. Roshini Witves. He died on 13-1-2000. The appellant is the mother of narsinga Rao. On her request, the authorities permitted her to continue the business in her name. The 4th respondent herein who is the wife of late Narsinga Rao allegedly gave consent thereto. She, however, subsequently, filed an objection petition on 12-6-2000 to the effect that her claim is superior. She also questioned the validity of the legal heir certificate granted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi in Lr. D. Dis. 72/2000, whereupon, the aforementioned certificate declaring the appellant and the 4th respondent as legal heirs of late Narsinga Rao was cancelled. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant herein was rejected and the 4th respondent was permitted to continue the business. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed in this Court by the appellant herein which was marked as W. P. No. 18318 of 2000 wherein this Court directed her to file a statutory appeal before the 1st respondent such statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent was disposed on 3-10-2000 ordering to maintain status quo as on the date and thereagainst the present writ petition has been filed by the appellant. After filing of the writ petition, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the 4th respondent herein was appointed as a teacher in the local Municipal Elementary school. An additional affidavit as per the directions of this Court was filed before the 1st respondent to decide whether the order dated 3-10-2000 requires any modification in view of the subsequent developments. An additional affidavit as per the directions of this Court was filed before the 1st respondent to decide whether the order dated 3-10-2000 requires any modification in view of the subsequent developments. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge formulated the question as to whether the 4th respondent is entitled to continue the licence to run the shop even after joining as a teacher in the Municipal Elementary school. On the basis of Rule 27 of A. P. Indian liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970, the learned Single Judge held that there was no prohibition that a person employed in a local body (Municipality) will not be eligible for grant of a licence and as such it would not be open to the licensing authority to disqualify the 4th respondent from having the licence. However, it was observed: however, it is open to the employer of the 4th respondent based on the relevant service rules/conduct rulep applicable to initiate appropriate proceedings if they are so advised. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the matter on 26-2-2001, we had asked the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent to report as to whether his client intends to continue the business or would like to continue in the job. When the matter came up for further hearing on 19-3-2001, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that despite issuance of a letter by him, no reply thereto had been received from the 4th respondent and as such it may be treated that he has no instructions in the matter. ( 6 ) IN a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that the question cannot be decided only by taking recourse to Rule 27 of the a. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor rules, 1970. The question must be answered from another angle as to whether any licence, either in law or in principle, can be granted in favour of an employee of the state or an employee working under a local authority. The Municipality is a local authority and thus is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of india. An employee of a State must choose between running a liquor shop or to continue in the employment. The Municipality is a local authority and thus is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of india. An employee of a State must choose between running a liquor shop or to continue in the employment. ( 7 ) IT may be that in terms of the service conditions laid down in the statutory rules, it is a misconduct and therefore an appropriate action may be taken by the employer as ex facie a employee of the State is prohibited from carrying on business. In view of the rules known as personal conduct of Officers and Servants Rules framed under A. P. Andhra Area District municipalities Act, 1920 which are applicable to the employees working under the control of the municipalities, in our opinion, the excise authorities may not exercise discretion in favour of such person having regard to the statutory rules operating in the field. It is better in a situation of this nature, the appellate authority also issues notice to the employer of respondent No. 4. ( 8 ) FURTHERMORE, the question is not as to whether a licensee is entitled to carry on the business or not. In the instant case, a question arose as to whether, in the facts and circumstances obtaining herein, the appellant or the 4th respondent who is entitled to continue the business as a heir of the deceased original licensee. ( 9 ) THE appropriate authority thus was under an obligation to consider this aspect of the matter. We, therefore, set aside the order of status quo passed by the appellate authority directing to maintain status quo. We are of the opinion, that the respondent no. 4 could not have been permitted to run the shop particularly having regard to the fact that she has been appointed as a teacher in a local municipality. ( 10 ) THOUGH the A. P. (Andhra Area) district Municipalities Act, 1920 under which Personal Conduct of Officers and servants Rules have been framed is repealed, in view of the fact that no rules have yet been framed under the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965, by virtue of section 18 of the General Clauses Act, 1891, the said conduct rules still continue to be in force. There is no dispute that the said conduct Rules are applicable to the 4th respondent. There is no dispute that the said conduct Rules are applicable to the 4th respondent. Rule 6 of the said Conduct rules reads thus: private trade or employment: (1) An officer or servant of a municipality shall not engage in any trade or undertake any employment other than his public duties. The conduct rules, therefore, clearly prohibits an employee of the municipality to engage in any trade or undertake any employment other than his public duties. However, such rule was not made applicable only in respect of teachers appointed as authorised agents for the sale of national Savings Certificates on a commission basis. Teachers are also prohibited from undertaking any private tuitions without the written permission of the Commissioner. Only certain types of private works i. e. , broadcast talks on educational problems, writing of text-books for class work or for use in librarise etc, can be undertaken by the teachers permission to undertake such works will be accorded by the executive authority of the municipality in consultation with the D. E. O. or the inspectors of Schools concerned. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, the 4th respondent has no right to continue the business after she joined as teacher in the Municipal elementary School. Further, running of a liquor shop by a teacher will have an adverse effect in the society and in the minds of the students as also their parents. This aspect of the matter, in our opinion, should have been taken into consideration by the authority while considering me issue as to whether an order of status quo should have been granted or not. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. The writ Appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.