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
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.