All these above writ petitions are being decided by this common order as the common question as well as the facts are involved in all both the writ
petitions. However, for the sake of brevity, facts have been taken from Writ Petition No.9367/2017.
2. The State Government had issued a notification dated 28/02/2014 providing for “Model Organization Structure†to be implemented in
respondent No.2-Corporation prescribing, inter-alia, that 10% of the total posts could be filled up by the Municipal Corporation without permission of
the State Government and permission will be required if posts more than 10% of the total number of posts have to be filled up.  It has also been
provided that corresponding amendments should be made in the recruitment and conditions of service rules pertaining to the employees of the
Municipal Corporation. Total 14 posts of Assistant Commissioner were sanctioned.  Mayor-in-Council convened meeting on 02/07/2014 and in
view of aforesaid circular dated 28/02/2014 necessary directions were issued.  Thereafter vide notification dated 18/09/2014 respondent No.1
sought for information with regard to the posts filled up as per the notification dated 28/02/2014. It was stated that 10% of the total posts could be
filled up by the Municipal Corporation without permission of the State Government and the permission would be required if the posts have to be filled
up more than 10% of the total number of posts. Â
3. Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 17/10/2014 requested the Registrar, PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur to undertake complete recruitment for 260 posts
invited application, scrutiny, conduct of written examination after preparing the question paper and sending the list of selected candidates after
valuation of the same.  As per the aforesaid notification dated 28/02/2014, respondent No.2 issued an advertisement inviting online applications for
various posts including four posts of Assistant Commissioner. For appointment on the post of Assistant Commissioner, 50% weightage would be
given to the merit of minimum qualification and remaining 50% would be taken from the merit of the written examination conducted by the PDPM,
IIITDM, Jabalpur.  Thereafter vide notification dated 15/07/2015, necessary amendments were made in Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation
(Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000 sanctioning, inter-alia, 14 posts of Assistant Commissioner. Â
Accordingly, after shortlisting the candidates, list for appearing in the written test was prepared in which the name of petitioner appeared at serial
No.31. Thereafter the Registrar, PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur informed respondent No.2 vide letter dated 10/02/2016 that written test for four posts of
Assistant Commissioner was conducted on 31/01/2016 at PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur wherein out of total 27,205 candidates, 80 candidates were called
for written test and 60 candidates appeared in the written test and merit list was prepared. On perusal of the merit list, it is revealed that the
petitioner secured 74.80% marks and topped in the selection list. Â
4. Thereafter a merit list was published on 15/02/2016Â and vide letter dated 05/03/2016 a selection committee, as prescribed under Rule 8(4) of the
Rules, was constituted which was requested to scrutinize the original records of all the selected candidates on 15/03/2016.  The petitioner was
asked to appear before the Committee on 15/03/2016 for the purpose of verification of the original documents and, accordingly, the petitioner appeared
on 15/03/2016 and got the original record verified.   The selection committee convened its meeting on 27/04/2016 for the purpose of appointment
of four posts of Assistant Commissioner as per the merit list.  The said list thereafter produced before the Mayor-in-council for appointment of
the such candidates.  As per Section 58(1)(iii) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, every appointment to be made by the Mayor-in-
Council shall be subject to prior confirmation of the State Government. Thereafter the said list with recommendations of the selection committee
has been sent to the Secretary, Mayor-in-Council along with precise vide letter dated 15/06/2016. The Mayor-in-Council convened its meeting on
21/06/2016 for the purpose of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Commissioner and for obtaining approval of the State Government.  Vide
Resolution No.199, the appointment on four posts of Assistant Commissioner was approved by the Mayor-in-Council for the approval of the State
Government as prescribed under the Act. Thereafter respondent No.1 vide letter dated 15/12/2015 has asked for information from respondent No.2
that if the appointments were made to the extent of 10% of the total posts, what was the establishment cost. Respondent No.2 vide letter dated
27/12/2016 informed respondent No.1 that out of 3835 total vacancies, 10%Â i.e. 384 posts could be filled up by the Corporation without approval of
the State Government and, accordingly, the same was filled up after advertising the same through selection by PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur.   It
was further informed that out of 14 posts of Assistant Commissioner, 50% i.e. seven posts could be filled by direct recruitment and four posts of such
seven posts were included in the 384 posts. It was also informed that the established cost would be 63.55% which was less than 65%. As the
petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Commissioner, therefore, he resigned from the post of Assistant Engineer in M.P. Poorva Kshetra
Vidyut Vitaran Company on 29/02/2016 for the purpose of giving joining on the post of Assistant Commissioner in the Corporation.  As nothing
was done in the matter, the petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation on 21/03/2017 and thereafter a reminder on 09/06/2017.
5. During pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner has been served with copy of order dated 11/08/2017 under Right to Information Act, 2005
whereby respondent No.1 has refused to confirm, inter-alia, the selection of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Commissioner for want of prior
permission under Section 58(1) of the Act for filling up more than 10% of the posts of Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by that, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as per notification issued on 18/09/2014Â it clearly reveals that 10% of the total posts in the
Municipal Corporation could be filled by it, therefore, the State Government is wrong in applying the same cadre-wise and erred in law in passing the
order dated 11/08/2017 and rejecting the approval only with regard to the post of Assistant Commissioner by applying the criteria of 10% on the cadre
of Assistant Commissioner. He further submits that 14 posts of Assistant Commissioner are sanctioned in the Corporation and 50% i.e. seven posts
could be filled up by direct recruitment and four out of seven posts were included in the 384 posts i.e. 10% of 3835 posts. He also submits that all
other appointment except Assistant Commissioner was undertaken by respondent No.2 -Corporation regarding the posts of Fireman, Time Keeper,
Revenue Inspector, Assistant Revenue Inspector, Electricians and Sanitary Inspector which have not been questioned by the State Government
though these posts are also included in the above 384 posts and appointment orders have been issued in their favour.  He contends that the
respondents have never raised an objection that PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur is not an agency for conducting the examination. He further submits
that respondent No.2 vide letter dated 17/10/2014 wrote a letter to the Registrar, PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur requesting to undertake complete
recruitment for 260 posts. A copy of the same was sent to respondent No.3 who never objected for the same. He further submits that as per
Rule 8 (Kha) of the Rules of 2000, any agency other than VYAPAM can be appointed in consultation with the State Government. The respondents
have never objected for the same and, therefore, now the respondents cannot say that PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur was not an authorized
agency.   PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur is an institution of national repute and its credibility has never been doubted by the State Government.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Mayor-inCouncil has passed resolution on 21/06/2016 regarding appointment of the petitioner
along with three other candidates and as per the procedure contemplated under Section 58(1)(iii) of the Act of 1956, such resolution is sent to the
State Government for final approval vide letter dated 28/07/2016.   Respondent No.2 has provided all the information which have been asked
by the State Government, however, the same has been rejected by the order dated 11/08/2017 upon completely misconstruing the notification dated
28/02/2014 read with notification/circular dated 18/09/2014. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
petition deserves to be allowed.
8. State Government has filed their reply and in the reply they have stated that Section 58 of the Act of 1956 empowers the State Government and the
respondents to have superintending power over Municipal Corporation in Madhya Pradesh including respondent No.2. Each appointment of the
cadre of Assistant Commissioner of the Corporation is to be done with the prior approval of the State Government and any deviation from such
statutory mandate vitiates such recruitment process. Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 28/02/2014 has given a consent for optimum administrative set
up. In the said notification it is directed that the direct recruitment of the post would not be not more than 10% of total post and if any Municipal
Corporation wants to have a recruitment for more than 10%Â of the posts, in that case a prior permission of the Urban Administration and
Development Department is required. The Mayor-inCouncil has passed Resolution No.1059. In the said meeting as there is requirement to fill up
the vacant post in the Corporation considering the circular dated 28/02/2014. It is proposed to fill up the vacant post through IIITDM, Jablapur and
the same has to be filled up by way of direct recruitment.  The proposal was placed before the Mayor-in-Council for having the permission from
the State Government and for the said purpose, consent has been given by the Mayor-in-Council.   Respondent No.1 has further stated that
Mayor-in-Council considering the circular dated 28/02/2014 wherein there is condition of not more than 10% posts to be filled and if there is a
recruitment to fill more than 10% , in that case a prior permission of the State Government is required.  The respondent No.1 has further stated
that as the selection process and examination has been conducted by IIITDM, the sanctity of the said institution in respect of having the legal
authorization has conducted such examination/selection process is to be seen in the light of the rules of 2000 which provides procedure for direct
recruitment i.e. under Rule 8 in which it is mentioned that the appointing authority shall decide whether the selection of candidate shall be made by the
competitive examination or by oral interview or by both.  The whole selection process has to be done by the committee and not by the outside
agency. Â
9. As per the documents dated 28/02/2014 and 18/09/2014, it is quite clear that any recruitment of the cadre of Assistant Commissioner which
exceeds 10% of total sanctioned establishment has to be conducted after obtaining prior approval of the State Government. Respondent No.2
commenced the recruitment process without completing the statutory requirements of section 58 of above Act and the circulars issued by the State
Government by way of the policy decision, thus, the commencement of recruitment process in violation of aforesaid mandatory direction of the State
Government was without jurisdiction and authority of law. Respondent No.1 has further stated that respondent No.2-Corporation has misunderstood
the intention of circular dated 28/02/2014 regarding fulfilment of 10%Â of the vacant post, inasmuch as the circular speaks about not more than 10%
of the vacant post in the single Municipal Corporation to be filled without the prior consent/approval of the concerned Department of the State
Government.
10. Learned Government for respondent No.1/State argues that if Annexure-P/1 dated 28/02/2014 has to be read in the proper perspective and in the
context of the object sought to be achieved on the provisions contained under Section 58 of the Act.  That it may be noted that the Municipal
Corporation across the State of M.P. fall under the supervisory control of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Ministry of Urban Administration and
Development and, thus, if the object of Municipal Corporation Act and specially provisions of Section 58 are seen, the appointments to be made by
Mayor-in-Council is subject to prior confirmation of the State Government and in fact the decision of the State Government shall be final. Thus, it
clearly shows that the State Government has the primary supervision power over the Municipal Corporation and which cannot be vested by the
concept of selfgovernment. These provisions are mandatory in nature and cannot even be assumed to have been mitigated by any executive
order. On 28/02/2014, it was decided by way of executive instructions and for the purpose of balance in promotion and for the proper cadre
management, per year not more than 10% of the vacant post can be filled by the Municipal Corporation and no prior approval/confirmation will be
required from the State Government. Thus, entire object of executive instruction dated 28/02/2014 is to see that there is balance in promotion and
the cadre management is done in a fruitful manner. Further, if Annexure-P/3 which is a communication dated 18/9/2014 is seen, paragraph-3 shows
that for working out the backlog, there is no need of taking any consent from the State Government. Thus, the plain reading of Annexure-P/1 read
with Annexure-P/3 shows that 10% has to be taken not from total sanctioned post but 10% of vacant posts per year and that too cadre-wise and
which are to be filled only by direct recruitment.  Thus, the said committee misconstrued the intention of executive instruction dated 28/02/2014
and MIC resolution dated 02/07/2014 and gave its own interpretation which finds place at Annexure-P/13 whereby it misconstrued 10% of vacant
post to be 10% of total sanctioned posts. Thus, it took the total sanctioned post at 3835 wherein it took 10% as 384 and concluded that Nagar Nigam,
Jabalpur has total 415 posts of direct recruitments and out of which 276 are vacant and since 276 is less than 10% of 3835 which is 384, no
confirmation/approval under Section 58 is required before the procedure for selection and appointment is commenced. The committee also failed to
take into account that 10% has to be cadre-wise since the entire object of the executive instruction dated 28/2/2014 is cadre management and it also
failed to take into consideration paragraph-3 of communication dated 18/9/2014 which says that for backlog, no prior sanction/approval of the State
Government is required as 276 posts also had backlog posts new post falling vacant on that year.
11. Learned Govt. Advocate also submits that looking it to the other way, the total sanctioned post is 3835 which includes the back log posts which are
vacant and also the promotional post along with the post for direct recruitment. 10% is only to be counted on direct recruitment cadrewise but
committee counted it on total sanction thereby making the entire executive instructions dated 28/02/2014 and 18/09/2014 redundant. Thus, it is
amply clear from the analogous reading of Annexure-P/1, P/2 and P/3 that 10% has to be calculated from vacant post cadre-wise to be filled by direct
recruitment and not 10%Â of total sanctioned posts which was wrongly done by the Municipal Corporation going misplaced cause to the petitioner to
claim something which is not permissible in law.  It is also submitted by learned Govt. Advocate that another aspect is MIC resolution dated
02/07/2014 which resolved to send the matter for approval to the State Government but to the reasons best known to the Corporation, the entire
selection procedure was done and that too in a frivolous manner and then the matter was sent for approval/appointment at a belated stage even when
it would not have been done because of the object of executive instructions dated 28/02/2014 as the post of Assistant Commissioner, for direct
recruitment is seven and 10%Â is 0.7 which may be rounded upto one (assuming but not intimating) and, therefore, sending the proposal for
appointment of four posts of Assistant Commissioner without prior confirmation is de-horse Section 58(1)(iii) of the Act of 1956, thus, the entire
exercise of the Corporation was vitiated and deserves to be quashed. Â
12. Learned Govt. Advocate also submits that it is further to be seen that if the interpretation of 10% of total sanctioned post is to be held valid, then
the Municipal Corporation will always have the unfettered power in only resolving for less than 384 posts and get it filed even without following cadre
management. This would mean that if supposed there are 400 posts lying vacant and more than 10 posts of Dy. Commissioner, 100 posts
Waterman and 100 posts of Driver and so on, to total 400, the Corporation will be at liberty to fill higher post of Assistant/Dy. Commissioner and leave
the other posts vacant which will go against the object of executive instructions dated 28/02/2017 of cadre management, therefore, the executive
instructions dated 28/02/2014 is to be read as 10% for vacant yearly cadre-wise direct recruitment posts and not what is interpreted by the committee
in Annexure-P/13.  Thus, it can be seen that the entire process of prior confirmation by the State Government as the State being the supervisory
authority and would see the conduct and the procedure to be adopted and then approve the seat for filling and then the Corporation should move
forward was not done and in the present case, the Corporation completely misread the provisions of Section 58 and went ahead to complete the entire
exercise of appointment making the State a mere audience and, thus, the impugned order dated 11/8/2017 correctly discarded the action of
Municipal Corporation, hence, the petition clearly is bereft of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Learned Govt. Advocate relies upon the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Kali Dass Batish and another reported in (2006) 1 SCC 779, State of U.P. and
others Vs. Om Prakash and others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 474. He also relies upon the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Lakhanlal
Sahu Vs. State of M.P. and another, reported in 2001 (5) MPHT 360, Rakesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2004(1) JLJ
83, Manjulata (smt) Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2001 (1) JLJ 236.
13. Respondents No.2 and 3 have also filed their reply and in the reply they have stated that the petitioner being found eligible for appointment was
selected to be appointed on the post of Assistant Commissioner in the establishment of respondent No.3. The appointment has been made through
Mayor-in-Council of the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.  In order to do so, a resolution was passed by the Mayor-in-Council as per the
provisions of Section 58(1)(iii) of the Act of 1956. As per the said provisions, once the resolution is passed, the same has to be sent to the State
Government for final approval.  Mayor-in-Council has considered the name of the petitioner along with three other candidates vide letter dated
28/07/2016.  The said proposal was sent to the State Government for final approval as stipulated under Section 58(1)(3) of the Act of 1956,
however, the State Government has not yet given approval for appointment of the said post. He further submits that Section 58(1)(iii) of the Act of
1956 very categorically stipulates that any appointment which is being made by the Mayor-in-Council shall be subject to prior confirmation of the State
Government. Respondents No.2 and 3 have completed all the procedure which is required in the selection of the candidates on the post of Assistant
Commissioner and even Mayor-inCouncil has not sent approval for confirmation of the State Government which is still pending. It is stated that as till
date the State Government has not approved confirmation of appointment of the petitioner, therefore, he cannot be allowed to join the post of Assistant
Commissioner.
Respondents No.2 and 3 have further stated that as and when the State Government grant approval, they allow the petitioner to join the post of
Assistant Commissioner.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. In the present case, a notification was issued by the State Government on 8/02/2014 providing for “Model Organization Structure†to be
implemented in respondent No.2-Corporation prescribing that 10% of the total posts could be filled up by the Municipal Corporation without permission
of the State Government and permission will be required if posts more than 10% of the total number of posts have to be filled up. It has further
been directed that corresponding amendments should be made in the recruitment and conditions of service rules. As per Section 58 of the Municipal
Corporation Act, prior approval of the State Government is necessary for making appointment of the Corporation's Officers and servants.Â
However, by this notification dated 28/02/2014 it is made clear that 10% of the total number of posts could be filled up by the Corporation without
permission of the State Government. In the present case, there are total 14 posts of Assistant Commissioner were sanctioned.Mayor-in-Council
convened meeting on 02/07/2014 and in view of aforesaid circular dated 28/02/2014, necessary directions were issued. Thereafter respondent No.1,
vide notification dated 18/09/2014 sought information with regard to the posts filled u as per the notification dated 28/02/2014. In pursuance of that
circular, it was stated that 10% of the total posts could be filled up by the Municipal Corporation without permission of the State Government.
16. Respondent No.2 thereafter vide letter dated 17/10/2014requested the Registrar, Â PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur to undertake complete recruitment
for 260 posts. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter, a notification issued on 28/02/2014, respondent No.2 issued an advertisement inviting online
applications for various posts including four posts of Assistant Commissioner. In the respondent no.2-Corporation, there are 14 posts of Assistant
Commissioner and out of which two posts are reserved for backlog category i.e. one for SC and one for ST candidate and remaining two posts, one
for unreserved woman and one for unreserved category.  In the present case, advertisement was issued for filling the posts of Assistant
Commissioner.  For appointment on the post of Assistant Commissioner, 50% weightage would be given to the merit of minimum qualification and
remaining 50% would be taken from the written examination conducted by the PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur. After shortlisting the candidates, list for
appearing in the written test was prepared in which the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No.31. Registrar vide letter dated 10/02/2016 has
conducted written test for four posts of Assistant Commissioner wherein out of 27,205 candidates, 80 candidates were called for interview and 60
candidates appeared in the written test and merit list was prepared. In the said examination the petitioner secured 74.80 marks. Thereafter merit list
was published on 15/02/2016 and a scrutiny committee was constituted which was requested to scrutinize the original record of all the selected
candidates on 15/03/2016. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Committee for the purpose of verification of the original documents and,
accordingly, the petitioner was appeared on 15/03/2016 and got the original record documents verified. A list was prepared and the same was
forwarded to Mayor-in-Council for appointment of the said candidates. As per Section 58(1)(iii) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956,
every appointment to be made by the Mayor-in-Council shall be subject to prior confirmation of the State Government, therefore, the
recommendations of the selection committee were sent to the Secretary, Mayor-in-Council vide letter dated 1506/2016. Mayor-in-Council in its
meeting dated 21/06/2016 for the purpose of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Commissioner passed Resolution No.199 for approval before
the State Government. Respondent No.1 thereafter asked for certain information which has been provided by the Corporation.
17. Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 27/12/2016 informed respondent No.1 that out of 3835 total vacancies. 10% i.e. 384 posts could be filled up by
the Corporation without prior approval of the State Government and the same was filled up after advertising the same through selection by PDPM,
IIITDM, Jabalpur. It was further informed that out of 14 posts of Assistant Commissioner, 50% i.e. seven posts could be filled by direct recruitment
and four out of such seven posts were included in 384 posts. It was also informed that establishment cost would be 63.55 which was less than 65%.Â
Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 11/08/2017 has refused to confirm the selection of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Commissioner for want of
prior permission under Section 58(1) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 for filling up more than 10% of the posts of Assistant
Commissioner.Â
18. As per notification dated 28/02/2014, it clearly reveals that less than 10% of the posts could be filled up by the Municipal Corporation and for the
same prior approval of the State Government is not necessary.
Para-4 of the said notification reads as under :
^^4@ mDr vkn'kZ dkfeZd lajpuk dh Lohd`fr ds dze esa fuEukuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk,&
 ¼1½ uxj ikfydk fuxe lafonk lsok¼fu;qfDr ,oa lsok dh 'krsZ½ fu;e]
2007 esa la'kks/ku fd;k tk,A
¼2½ uohu vkn'kZ dkfeZd lajpuk ds vuqlkj] inksUufr esa larqyu ds fy, ,oa laoxZ izca/ku dh n`f""V ls izfr o""kZ dqy inksa dk 10 izfr'kr ls vuf/kd
HkrhZ dh tkosA fdlh uxj ikfydk fuxe esa 10 izfr'kr ls vf/kd
HkrhZ djus dh vuqefr gsrq uxjh; iz'kklu ,oa fodkl foHkkx l{ke gksxkA
¼3½ uxj ikfydk fuxeksa esa vf/kdre LFkkiuk O;; dh lhek 65 izfr'kr dks fu;r j[krs gq, fu;qfDr;ksa ds i'pkr izfro""kZ LFkkiuk O;; esa deh dh dk;Z
;kstuk cuk;s tkus gsrq uxjh; fudk;ksa dks funsZ'k tkjh fd, tk,A
¼4½ uxj ikfydk fuxeksa esa izpfyr foHkkxksa ds uke vc layXu ifjf'k""V&5 ds vuqlkj ifjofrZr fd;k tk,A
e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls
rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj
¼ds0ds dkfr;k½     mi lfpo
e/; izns'k 'kklu uxjh; iz'kklu ,oa fodkl foHkkx^^
19. As per said notification, 10% of the total vacancies of the sanctioned posts shall be filled up by the Corporation without permission of the State
Government. However, if this percentage exceeds to 10%, then prior approval of the State Government is necessary. From bare perusal of the
said clause of the notification, it reveals that 10% of the posts are to be filled up from the total vacant posts and not on cadre-wise basis.   In the
present case, the total sanctioned posts in the Corporation are 3835 and out of which 10% posts come to 384 posts which include four posts of
Assistant Commissioner. In the Corporation, 14 posts of the Assistant Commissioner were sanctioned.  Out of seven posts, two posts are
reserved for backlog category i.e. one for SC and one for ST candidates, one for unreserved woman candidate and one post of unreserved
candidate. These posts are included in 384 posts and, therefore, the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of
Assistant Commissioner. It is also to be seen that the posts of Fireman,
Time Keeper, Revenue Inspector, Assistant Revenue Inspector, Electricians and Sanitary Inspector have not been quested by the State Government
though these posts are also included in the above 384 posts and the appointment orders have been issued in their favour.  After scrutiny of the
documents of the petitioner, his name was included in the select list and the matter was forwarded to the Mayor-in-Council for necessary approval
and the Mayor-in-Council passed the resolution.
Relevant extract of the said resolution (Annexure-P/13) reads as under :
^^es;j&bu&dkSafly uxj fuxe tcyiqj ds ladYi dz- 1059 fnukad 02 tqykbZ 2014 ds ek/;e ls 'kklu }kjk uxj fuxe tcyiqj ds fy, fu/kkZfjr vkn'kZ dkfeZd lajpuk
vaxhd`r dh xbZ gSA rnuqlkj uxj fuxe tcyiqj esa dqy 2045 fu;fer rFkk 1790 lafonk ds in Lohd`r gks x;s gSaA ftudk fooj.k mijksDr ladYi ds fy, izLrqr
foHkkxh; izLrko esa fd;k x;k gSA jkT; 'kklu ds i= dz- ,Q 4&122@2014@18&1 Hkksiky fnukad 18-09-2014 ds }kjk izR;sd o""kZ esa Lohd`r inksa ds
10% inksa dh iwfrZ dh Lohd`fr nh xbZ gSA uxj fuxe tcyiqj esa mijksDr vkn'kZ dkfeZd lajpuk vuqlkj dqy 3835 fu;fer in gSaA blds eku ls 10% vFkkZr~
384 in iwfrZ 01 o""kZ esa dh tk ldrh gSA uxj fuxe tcyiqj esa lh/kh HkrhZ ds orZeku esa dqy 415 in ds fo:) 139 in Hkjs gSa rFkk 276 Ikn fjDr gSaA bl
izdkj uxj fuxe esa Lohd`r dqy inksa ds eku ls 10% ls de in fjDr gSaA vr% leLr fjDr inksa dh iwfrZ dh tk ldrh gSA mijksDRk ladYi dz- 1059 }kjk
cSdykWx ds fjDr inksa dh iwfrZ IIITDM tcyiqj ds ek/;e ls djus dh Lohd`fr nh xbZ gSA ladYi esa lh/kh HkrhZ ds vukjf{kr inksa dh iwfrZ gsrq 'kklu
vuqefr pkgh xbZ gSA ,slh vuqefr ds dze esa 'kklu dk i= dz- ,QÂ 4&122@2014@18&1 Hkksiky fnukad 18-09-2014 lfefr ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftlds
vuqlkj 10% inksa ls vf/kd inksa dh iwfrZ gsrq gh 'kklu Lohd`fr i`Fkd ls visf{kr gS vU;Fkk dh fLFkfr esa 10% inksa dh lhek esa inksa dh iwfrZ dh
vuqefr iwoZ ls gh nh xbZ gSA
fjDr inksa dh lwph ds vuqlkj lgk;d vk;qDr ds 04 in fjDr gSa] ftuesa 02 cSdykx ¼1½ v-tk- ¼1½ v-t-tk ds gSa rFkk 'ks""k 02 in esa ls 01 in
vukjf{kr efgyk ds fy, ¼30% vkj{k.k ds eku ls½ o 01 in vukjf{kr Js.kh ds fy, gSA^^
20. Municipal Corporation has sent the said resolution to the State Government for necessary approval, however, the said resolution was turned down
by the State Government on the ground that prior approval of the State Government has not been taken before making appointment as the Corporation
is making the appointment more than 10%. The order passed by the State Government is contrary to the notification issued by the State
Government. As per notification dated 28/02/2014, if more than 10% of the total posts are to be filled up, then the prior approval of the State
Government is required. As stated herein above, total sanction are 3835 and out of which 10% posts are 384. Thus, as per the notification dated
28/02/2014, 10% of the total posts are to be filled up from total vacant post and not from cadre-wise.Â
21. The second objection taken by the respondents that PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur is not an agency for conducting the examination, is also not correct.
When the examination was conducted by the PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur for filling of the posts, no objection has been raised any of the respondents
and the said selection was undertaken in view of the letter dated 17/10/2014 written by respondent No.2 to the Registrar, PDPM, IIITDM,
Jabalpur. As the respondents have never objected for the same, therefore, now the respondents cannot say that PDPM, IIITDM, Jabalpur was not
an authorised agency. So far as judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, that could not be applicable in the
present case because in these cases, it has been held that approval of the State Government is necessary before transferring and appointing any
person, but, as in the present case, the appointments are made less than 10% of the total vacant posts, therefore, as per the notification issued by the
State Government, prior approval of the State Government is not necessary.
22. In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 11/08/2017 is hereby quashed. The respondents No.1 is directed
to issue prior confirmation as required under Section 58(1) (iii) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 regarding appointment of the petitioner on the
post of Assistant Commissioner under unreserved category. Such approval shall be given by the State Government within three months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After getting such approval, respondent No.2 is directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner
for the of Assistant Commissioner under unreserved category. No order as to cost.Â
