THE AMALAPURAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR. versus U. SIMHADRI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 563 · Decided: 12-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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. 
563 
H 
A 
B 
c 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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 
E 
F 
note that no order of appointment would be issued pending the scrutiny 
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 
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 appointme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.