1996 INSC 1082
                                 Amalapuram Municipal Council and Another

                                                           Vs

                                                     U. Simhadri

                                         Civil Appeal No. 10991 of 1996

                                      (K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      12.08.1996

                                                        ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad dated 10-11-1995 made in OA No. 1499 of 1994. The admitted facts are that to fill up
the post, 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 18-2-1992. The Government,
on becoming aware of the malpractice being committed in the method of recruitment of the
candidates and that undue favouritism was being shown, have issued GO No. 413, MA dated 10-3-
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 (Convenor), District Educational Officer in case of recruitment of Municipal
School teachers, Regional Joint Director of Municipal Administrative 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 malpractices in
the selection process. Admittedly, the selection had taken place on 28-3-1992. 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 in the
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.

4. 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 called from the employment
exchange, on the day of selection, namely, 28-3-1992, GO was in force w.e.f. 10-3-1992.
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 that 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.

5. 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.