Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the appointment of the appellant as Tax Inspector by the Municipal Board of Jaunpur. The Municipal Board had invited applications for the post, allowing both existing employees and outsiders to apply. Respondent No. 3, the seniormost Tax Collector, refused to attend the interview, claiming the position should be filled exclusively by promotion. The Municipal Board appointed the appellant, leading Respondent No. 3 to challenge this decision before the Commissioner, who subsequently set aside the appointment, asserting that Respondent No. 3 was entitled to promotion under the Government Order dated 10.4.50. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's order. The Supreme Court found that the High Court and the Commissioner erred in their decisions. It held that Section 71 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 did not grant the State Government the authority to mandate that the post of Tax Inspector be filled solely by promotion. The Court emphasized that the Municipal Board acted within its jurisdiction by allowing direct recruitment and that the Commissioner’s order violated the principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not given a chance to be heard. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and the Commissioner's decision, reinstating the appellant's appointment without costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Discipline - Referral to Larger Bench - A Single Judge's disagreement with another Single Judge's decision necessitates referral to a larger bench for authoritative resolution - U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, Section 71 - The High Court's Single Judge failed to adhere to judicial discipline by not referring the matter, leading to an erroneous decision. (Paras 205B-C) B) Administrative Law - Conditions of Service - State Government's Power - Section 71 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 did not empower the State Government to issue directions regulating conditions of service of Municipal employees prior to its 1964 amendment - The Municipal Board was within its rights to appoint the Tax Inspector by direct recruitment. (Paras 205D, 207D) C) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to Hearing - The appointment conferred a vested right to the appellant, which could not be revoked without a hearing - The Commissioner's order was void as it was issued without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard. (Paras 207G-H, 208A)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the appellant as Tax Inspector was valid under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and the Government Order dated 10.4.50.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Commissioner, reinstating the appellant's appointment as Tax Inspector.
Law Points
- Judicial discipline
- Natural justice
- Appointment procedures
- Municipal service regulations
