12 August 1996
Supreme Court
Download

AMALAPURAM MUN. COUNCIL Vs U. SIMHADRI

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: C.A. No.-010991-010991 / 1996
Diary number: 2418 / 1996
Advocates: S.. UDAYA KUMAR SAGAR Vs


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE AMALAPURAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL& ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: U. SIMHADRI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   468        1996 SCALE  (6)247

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This 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. Admittedly, the selection had taken place on March 28, 1992. Though 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

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.      It 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.      The 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.