THE AMALAPURAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR.versusU. SIMHADRI

        THE AMALAPURAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR.                            A
                            v.
                      U. SIMHADRI

                              AUGUST 12, 1996

             [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                          B

        Andhra Pradesh Mu11icipalities Ac• 1965 : Sectio11 74.

       Service Law-Selectiorr-Governme11t Memora11dum No. 372 dated
18.2.1992-C/1airnia11 of Mu11icipality competent to make selection without C
a11y cou11ter verificatio11 of selectio11 process-Later a11other G.O. No. 413
dated 10.3.1992 issued with a view to e/imi11ati11g malpractices i11 selec-
tion-Sciuti11y of supervisory Committee required u11der latter order-Names
called from Employme11t Excha11ge by Chain11a11-Selectio11 made 011
28.3.1992 i.e. subsequent to the latter order comi11g into force-Appoi11tme11t
of ca11didate who secured less marks-Tribu11a/ issui11g direction for appoint- D
ment of respo11dent-AppeaHleld selectio11 was fi11alised when Second
Government order was i11 force-171erefore se/ectio11 was subject to scrutiny
of Scrutiny Committee-Held selectio11 was made inspite of irregularity
pointed out and Tribunal also directed implementatio11 of selection-!n the
circumstances the Tribunal was not justified i11 giving direction to make the E
appointment of the respo11de11t.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10991 of
1996.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.95 of the Andhra Pradesh         F
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1499 of 1994.

        L.N. Rao, V. Sreedhar Reddy and S.U.K. Sagar for the Appellants.

      K.N. Balgopal, AP. Mukund, Mahender Singh and Devender Singh
for the Respondent.                                                          G
        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Leave grnnted.

        We have heard learned counsel on both sides.                         H
                                     563
    564                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A        This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the AP.
  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 com-
  petent authority to make selection without any counter verification of the
B process of selecting the candidates, pursuant to the Government Memoran-
  dum No. 372, Municipal Administration dated February 18, 1992. The
  Government, on becoming aware of the mal-practice being committed in
  the method of recruitments of the candidates and that undue favouratism
  was being shown, have issued G.0. No. 413 MA dated March 10, 1992
c 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 (Con-
  vener), District Educational officer in case of recruitment of Municipal
  School teachers, Regional Joint Director of Municipal Administration and
D 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
E by the Supervisory Committee. nominated in the above Government order,
  yet the Chairman chose to proceed with the appointment; but the Commit-
   tee, 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
F
   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 appoint-
   ment of the respondent. The Tribunal held that under Section 74 of the
   Municipalities Act, 1%5, the Chairman was the competent authority on the
G 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.

H          It cannot be disputed that as on that date under Section 74, the ·
                AMALAPURAMMUN.COUNC!Lv. U.SIMHADRI                        565

    Chairman was the competent authority to make appointment of the staff A
    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, March 28, 1992, G.0. was in force w.e.f. March 10, 1992. Conse-
                                                                                 B
    quently, 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 rules and had also issued directions not to proceed with finalisa-
    tion of selection and the Scrutiny Committee having pointed out the
    irregularity of selection, nonetheless that selection came to be finalised  c
    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 D
    qualifications and merits and proceed with the appointments as per the
    rules. No costs.

    T.N.A.                                                 Appeal dismissed.