Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the selection process for a post in the Amalapuram Municipal Council. The Chairman of the Municipality initiated the selection by calling for names from the employment exchange. The Government had issued Memorandum No.372 dated February 18, 1992, which did not require counter-verification of selections made by the Chairman. However, after becoming aware of malpractices and undue favoritism in recruitment, the Government issued Government Order No.413, Municipal Administration dated March 10, 1992, which required that selections made by a committee headed by the Chairman be counter-verified by a Supervisory Committee consisting of the District Collector (Convener), District Educational Officer (for school teacher posts), Regional Joint Director of Municipal Administration, and Municipal Commissioner. The selection in question took place on March 28, 1992, after the Government Order came into force. The Commissioner had noted that no appointment order should be issued pending scrutiny by the Supervisory Committee, but the Chairman proceeded with the appointment. The Supervisory Committee recorded that the respondent selected by the Chairman had passed SSC with 207 marks, whereas another candidate, Shri Kollu Satyanarayana, was a B.A. graduate with 224 marks in SSC. No reason was given for preferring the lesser qualified candidate. The respondent approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction for appointment. The Tribunal held that under Section 74 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, the Chairman was the competent authority on the date the selection process was initiated, and that the Government Order had not come into force then, so the Chairman was competent to select and appoint. The Tribunal directed appointment of the respondent. The Municipal Council appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that while under Section 74 the Chairman was indeed competent as on the date the process started, the Government Order No.413 was in force with effect from March 10, 1992, and therefore the selection made on March 28, 1992 was subject to scrutiny by the Scrutiny Committee. The Court observed that despite the Commissioner pointing out the rule and the Scrutiny Committee pointing out the irregularity, the selection was finalized, and the Tribunal directed its implementation. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in giving direction to make the appointment of the respondent. The appeal was dismissed, but the Court left it open to the Municipality to conduct a fresh selection to the post and select candidates according to qualifications and merits as per rules. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Municipal Appointments - Competent Authority and Statutory Power - Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, Section 74 - On the date selection process began, the Chairman of Municipality was competent to appoint municipal staff under Section 74; the 1994 amendment transferring power to Commissioner was prospective and not relevant. Held that Chairman's initial authority was recognized, but subsequent government order modified selection procedure. (Paras 1-2) B) Administrative Law - Selection Procedure - Government Order Requiring Scrutiny - Government Order No.413, Municipal Administration dated March 10, 1992 - Government issued G.O. to eliminate malpractices requiring counter-verification by Supervisory Committee of selections made by Committee headed by Chairman; since G.O. was in force w.e.f. March 10, 1992 and selection occurred March 28, 1992, any selection was subject to scrutiny. Held that selection made without scrutiny was irregular. (Paras 1-2) C) Service Law - Appointment - Merit and Fairness - Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 read with G.O. No.413 - Selected candidate had passed SSC with 207 marks while another candidate was B.A. graduate with 224 marks; no reason given for preferring lesser qualified candidate. Held that ignoring better qualified candidate without reasons vitiated selection process; Tribunal erred in directing appointment. (Paras 1-2) D) Judicial Review - Administrative Tribunal Decision - Interference by Supreme Court - Constitution of India, Article 136 read with A.P. Administrative Tribunal Order - Tribunal's direction to implement selection despite Scrutiny Committee pointing out irregularity was unjustified. Held that appeal dismissed, but Municipality permitted to conduct fresh selection according to qualifications and merits. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing appointment of the respondent when a Government Order requiring scrutiny of selections by a Supervisory Committee had come into force before the selection was finalized, and whether the Chairman's selection made without counter-verification was valid under Section 74 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was not justified in giving direction to make the appointment of the respondent. The appeal was dismissed, but the Municipality was permitted to conduct a fresh selection to the post and select candidates according to qualifications and merits as per rules. No costs.
Law Points
- Under A.P. Municipalities Act
- 1965 Section 74
- Chairman was competent authority for appointments as on date selection process initiated
- Government Order No.413 dated 10.03.1992 required counter-verification of selections by Supervisory Committee
- any selection made after G.O. came into force was subject to scrutiny
- Tribunal erred in directing implementation of selection despite Scrutiny Committee pointing out irregularity and better qualified candidate ignored
- Municipality permitted to conduct fresh selection according to qualifications and merits.
