JUDGMENT : S.B. Sinha, J. The Writ Petition is directed against a judgment dated 31-3-1999 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 7926 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the petitioner herein questioning the legality or validity of the orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 4-11-1998 and the order dated 9-11-1998 of the 2nd respondent was disposed of directing: No doubt from the impugned orders we do not see that an opportunity was given to the appellant to represent his case. But herein Rule 12 of A.P. Revenue Subordinate Service Rules prohibits such appointment on two grounds which are elaborately discussed supra. At any rate, the impugned orders were passed by the Government without providing an opportunity to the applicant to represent his case. Thus we remit back this case to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders after providing an opportunity to the applicant to represent his case. The impugned orders are thus set aside. The appellate authority shall pass appropriate orders within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity to the applicant to represent his case. 2. The petitioner's father Sri V. Satyanarayana was a Village Administrative Officer. He expired on 16-3-1997. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed by the 2nd respondent on 24-7-1998. 3. The 6th respondent who happens to be the Sarpanch of the village approached the 2nd respondent questioning such appointment pursuant whereto the appointment was suspended on 1-11-1998. A consequential order dated 9-11-1998 has been passed by the 3rd respondent. 4. The short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal committed any error. 5. A consequential order dated 9-11-1998 has been passed by the 3rd respondent. 4. The short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal committed any error. 5. Rule 63 of the A.P. Village Administrative Officers Rules, 1990 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Rules") reads thus: Revision:- (1) The Government may either suo motu or on an application made to them call for and examine the records relating to any decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue under these rules, not being a decision or order staying the execution of any decision or order appealed from or sought to be revised for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality, regularity or propriety thereof and pass such order in reference thereto as they think fit: Provided that no application for the revision of any such decision or order shall be entertained after the expiry of sixty days from the date of such decision or order: Provided further that the Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any person unless such person has had an opportunity of making a representation. (2) The Government may slay the execution of such decision, or order pending the exercise of their power under sub-rule (1) in respect thereof. (3) Any application for the revision made after the expiry of the period specified in the first proviso to sub-rule (1) may be admitted if the applicant satisfies the Government that he had sufficient cause for not making such application within the said period. 6. A perusal of the said rule would clearly show that the power of sruo motu revision is only confined to the-decision of the Commissioner of Land Revenue. It is not in dispute that as regards an action taken by the 3rd respondent, appeal lies. The order dated 9-11-1998 impugned before the learned Tribunal is as follows: In the reference 2nd read above, Government have issued orders suspending the orders of appointment of Sri V.V.P. Jagannadha Rao as Village Administrative Officer Vasadhi village pending disposal of the appeal filed under Rule 55(2) of A.P.V.A.O. Service Rules, 1990. The order dated 9-11-1998 impugned before the learned Tribunal is as follows: In the reference 2nd read above, Government have issued orders suspending the orders of appointment of Sri V.V.P. Jagannadha Rao as Village Administrative Officer Vasadhi village pending disposal of the appeal filed under Rule 55(2) of A.P.V.A.O. Service Rules, 1990. In pursuance of the said orders Sri V.V.P. Jagannadha Rao V.A.O., Vasadhi village is hereby removed from the duties of Village Administrative Officer, Vasadhi (v), Gantyada Mandal with immediate effect. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gantyada is directed to relieve the individual immediately by making alternative arrangements. The Mandal Revenue Officer shall ensure that the entire village records of Vasadhi village are handed to the incharge Village Administrative Officer. 7. It is relevant to note that the age of superannuation of a Village Administrative Officer is 65 years subject to his or her being physically fit as assessed to the satisfaction of the appointing authority having regard to the amendment of the Rule 38 of the Rules in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 875, Rev. (V.O.), dated 30-8-1994. It is not in dispute that by an order dated 30-8-1996 the service of late V. Satyanarayana was extended for two years with effect from 1-7-1996. 8. It is one thing to say that an appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted in a case where the service of an employee has been extended in the sense of reappointment. But having regard to the provisions of Rule 38 aforementioned, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the age of superannuation is 65 years subject of course to the employee having been found physically fit and mentally alert. It is not, therefore, a case of an ordinary extension of service which would amount to reemployment. 9. Furthermore, Sarpanch as such has no authority to initiate such a proceeding. While initiating such proceedings the party must be informed that a suo motu proceedings is going to be invoked. In M/s. D.N. Roy v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1045 while considering the suo motu revisional power of the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 it was observed: At no stage the appellant was informed that the Central Government proposed to exercise its suo motu power and asked him to show cause against the exercise of such a power. Failure of the Central Government to do so, in our opinion, vitiates the impugned order. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it must be held that the order of the 2nd respondent and the order of' the 3rd respondent impugned before the learned Tribunal are wholly without jurisdiction and as such it was not a case where the Tribunal could have directed remission of the matter back to it for a decision on merit and after giving an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.