LexSHRIDHAR SON OF RAM DULAR versus NAGAR PALIKA, JAUNPUR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, SHRIDHAR SON OF RAM DULAR v. NAGAR PALIKA, JAUNPUR AND ORS. NOVEMBER 17, 1989 [K.N. SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916: Section 71-Scope of-Whether confers power on State Govt. to issue directions, regulating the condi- tions of service of Municipal Employees. A B Tax Inspector-Appointment of-Whether to be exclusively filled C by promotion-Government's Order dated J0.4.50--Applicability of. Practice and Procedure: Judicial discipline-Single Judge disag- reeing with another Single Judge-Matter should be referred to a Larger Bench. Administrative Law-Principles of natural justice-Violation of-Effect. The Municipal Board, Jaunpur invited applications for the post of Tax Inspeetor. The employees working in the Revenue Department of the Municipal Board were eligible for consideration alongwitb the out- siders. Respondent No. 3, the seniormost Tax Collector in Municipal Board, was called for interview but he refused to appear on the plea that the post of Tax Inspector should be exclusively filled by promotion and being the seniormost Tax Collector he should be promoted without considering any outsider. Ignoring his claim the Municipal Board selected and appointed the appellant to the post of Tax Inspector. Respondent No. 3 represented to the Commissioner challenging the appellant's appointment. The Commissioner set aside the order of the Municipal Board and cancelled the appellant's appointment holding that pursuant to the directions contained in the Government's Order dated 10.4.50, Respondent No. 3 was entitled to promotion. The appel- lant challenged the Commissioner's order before the High Court by filing a writ petition. Disagreeing with the decision of another Single Judge, a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, and affirmed the order of the Commissioner on the findings that the appel- lant's appointment was made in violation of the Government's Order dated J0.4.50. Hence this appeal. 201 D F G H 202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, this Court, B c D E F HELD: J. The orders of the High Court and the Commissioner are not sustainable in law. [208B] • I. I. It is a well-settled principle of judicial discipline that if a Single Judge disagrees with the decision of another Single Judge, it is proper to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authori~tive deci- sion. But in the instant case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court acted contrary to the well established principles of judicial discipline in ignorning those decisions. [205B-C] 2. Section 7 J of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 before its amendment in !964 did not confer power on the State Government to issue any direction regulating the conditions of service of Municipal employees. [205D] Ramesher Prasad and Urs. v. Municipal Board, Pilibhit, A.I.R. 1958 All. 363; Ram Kripal Garg v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 4556 of 1965 dated !6.9.66 and lnder Bahadur v. Municipal Board, Mirza- pur and Ors.; Writ petition No. 235 of 1970 dated 20.10.1972 approved. 2. l Even after conceding supervisory power to the State Govern- ment to issue directions laying down conditions of service of Municipal employees, there are no directions in the Government Order dated J0-4-50 requiring a Municipal Board to fill the post of Tax Inspector only by promotion and not by direct recruitment. Therefore, it was open to the Municipal Board to make appointment to the post of Tax Inspector either by direct recruitment or by promotion. [205G; 207D l 2.2 In the instant case, the Municipal Board gave opportunity to its employees working in the revenue class of service to appear for selec- tion in competition with outsiders. Respondent No. 3 however did not avail the opportunity for which he himself is to be blamed. The Munici- pal Board acted within its jurisdiction in making appointment to the G post of Tax Inspector by direct recruitment. [207E] 2.3 A Govt. Order declared ultra vires by the High Court, could not be revived by any subsequent Govt. Order without there being any statutory power for the same .. [205E] H 3. It is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person SHRIDHAR v. NAGAR PALIKA [SINGH, J.] 203 should be condemned without bearing. The order of appointment con- ferred a vested right in the appellant to bold the post of Tax Inspector, that righ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.