Municipal Council & Anr Vs. U. Simhadri  INSC 940 (12 August 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (7) 468 1996 SCALE (6)247
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
appeal by special leave arises against the order of the A.P. Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 10.11.1995 made in O.A.
No.1499/94. The admitted facts are that to fill up the post of Chairman, the
Chairman of the Municipality called for names from the employment exchange.
When the names were sent preceding the selection, the Chairman was a competent
authority to make selection without any counter verification of the process of
selecting the candidates, pursuant to the Government Memorandum No.372,
Municipal Administration dated February 18, 1992.
The Government, on becoming aware of the mal-practice being committed in the
method of recruitment of the candidates and that undue favouratism was being
shown, have issued G.O. No.413, MA dated March 10, 1992 under which though the
Committee headed by the Chairman of the Municipality was competent to select
the candidates, it was required to be counter-verified by a committee
consisting of District Collector (Convener), District Educational Officer in case
of recruitment of Municipal School teachers, Regional Joint Director of
Municipal Administration and Municipal Commissioner concerned, was constituted
to scrutinise the selection and then on the basis of the recommendations so
made, the appointment would be made. This was issued with a view to eliminate
mal-practices in the selection process.
the selection had taken place on March 28, 1992.
the Commissioner had pointed out in his note that no order of appointment would
be issued pending the scrutiny by the Supervisory Committee nominated in the
above Government order, yet the Chairman chose to proceed with the appointment;
but the Committee, in the meanwhile, had met and recorded that the respondent
who was selected by the Chairman had passed only SSC with 207 marks while one
of the candidates Shri Kollu Satyanarayana was a B.A. graduate and secured 224
marks with SSC examination. No reason was given as to why a better candidate
was not preferred to a candidate who secured lesser marks. Under those
circumstances, the respondent had gone to the Tribunal for a direction. The
Tribunal had issued a direction for appointment of the respondent. The Tribunal
held that under Section 74 of the Municipalities Act, 1965, the Chairman was
the competent authority on the date the selection process was initiated the
above G.O. had not come into force and, therefore, the Chairman was the
competent authority to select and appoint the candidate. Accordingly, the
direction came to be issued. Thus this appeal by special leave.
cannot be disputed that as on that date under Section 74, the Chairman was the
competent authority to make appointment of the staff of the municipality.
Subsequently, the Act came to be amended in 1994 giving the power to the
Commissioner of the Municipality with which we are not concerned. Though the
selection process had started as names had been from the employment exchange on
the day of selection, namely, March 28, 1992, G.O. was in force w.e.f. March
10, 1992. Consequently, any selection made by a Committee headed by the
Chairman would be subject to the scrutiny by the Scrutiny Committee referred to
hereinbefore, In spite of the fact that the Commissioner had pointed out the
above rule and had also issued directions not to proceed with finalisation of
selection and the Scrutiny Committee having pointed out the irregularity of
selection, nonetheless selection came to be finalised which the Tribunal has
directed to be implemented. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view
that the Tribunal was not justified in giving direction to make the appointment
of the respondent.
appeal is dismissed. It is open to the Municipality to conduct fresh selection
to the post and select the candidates according to the qualifications and merits
and proceed with the appointments as per the rules. No costs.