LexCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, BEED AND ORS. versus SYED YASIN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, BEED AND ORS. v. SYED YASIN AND ORS. APRIL 24, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PAITANAIK, JJ.} Se1vice Law-Mallamshtra Zilla Pmishad1· DistJict Se1vices (Recmit- ment) Rules, 1967-Primary School Teachers in services of Zilla Pwishads-Upgradation of these posts to post of Head Masters--Resolution No. PTP. 1070-F dated 22.10.1970 authorising Upgradation 1v.e.j. 1.4. 1966--Conditions precedent should be sati.1jied. A B c The State of Maharashtra issued a Resolution No. PTP. 1070-F dated 22.10.1970 authorising the Zilla Parishads, authorised D Municipalities, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Councils in Nagpur Division to upgrade the existing posts of primary school teachers on their respe~tive establishments into the posts of Head Masters with retrospective effect from 1.4.1966. It was, however, stated in the Resolution that the number of posts tl; be upgraded in each Zilla Parishad should be equal to the total number of primacy school teachers E upto and inclusive of Standard Vll and other primary schools having 200 or more people on their rolls on 1.4.1966; that the authorised· Municipalities should be requested to fix the number of posts of Head Masters on the basis indicated on 1.4.1966 for the first time and to subsequently review it annually on 1st April; that the Zilla Parishads F should be requested to fill up the posts of Head Masters by promotion in accordance with, the provisions of Rule 6(4) r/w item No.8 in Appendix IV (Part II) to Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967. Respondents 1 to 4 serving under Zilla Parishad as Primary School G Teachers no deputation were finally absorbed in the services of Zilla Parishad in the year 1968·69. They filed Writ Petition claiming that they were entitled to the time scale of pay admissible to the post of Head Master w.e.f. 1.4.1966 on the basis of this Government Resolution, While the matter was pending, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, the H 729 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A competent authority to decide the lJUestion of upgradation by his order dated 18.4.9!1 directed that respondents 1 to 4 be granted the scale of pay meant for upgraded Head Masters w.e.f. 1.4.1966. However, the Chief Executive Officer suspended the operation of his order by his subsequent order dated 26.10.1990 when the Accounts Officer pointed out that this B order was contrary to the Government Resolution. The High Court, how- ever, relying upon his earlier order, without noticing the subselJUent order of the Executive Otlicer dated 26.10.1990, allowed the Writ Application. Hence this appeal. The appellant contended that the High Court committed gross error C in giving effect to the order of the executive otlicer dated 18.4.1990 even though that order had been kept under suspension by the later order dated 26.10.1990 and the High Court ~ithout even examining the question as to whether there was vacancy for upgradation in terms of Resolution dated 22.10.1970 committed error in directing implementation of the earlier D nrder of the Executive Ofticer. E The respondents contended that there were several subsequent clarificatory orders issued by the State Governmept to clarify that respon- dents were entitled for being promoted to the upgraded post of Head Masters. However, no such orders were produced. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : By resolution dated 22.10.1970 a Chief Executive Otlicer of a Zilla Parishad would be authorised to upgrade the post of primary F school teacher to that of Head master provided the condition precedent prescribed in the said Resolution were satisfied. The Resolution did not ipso facto convert the post of primary school teacher to that of Head Master. The Chief Executive Officer was entitled to consider the matter afresh and put the earlier order in abeyance. Non consideration of his order dated 26.10.1990 by the High Court and directing implementation of the earlier G order dated 18.4.1990 vitiated the judgment of the High Court. Since the Chief Executive Officer had merely suspended the earlier order dated 18.4.1990 and had not taken any final decision with regard to the entitlement of respondents 1 to 4 to be appointed against the upgraded post of Head Master and if so from which date, the Chief Executive Officer is directed to H take a final decision wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.