@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.K. Dube, J.
This petition is directed against the appointment of respondent No. 3 on the post of Revenue Inspector, Municipal Committee, Bhind. The
petitioner who is himself a candidate for the post seeks to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 3 on the ground that it violates the
statutory law.
Briefly, the facts giving rise to this petition are these: The petitioner was appointed on 31-12-1958 as a Nakedar in the services of Nagar-Palika,
Bhind. The post of Nakedar is in the revenue section of the Municipal Committee. By a resolution of the Standing Committee, dated 29-6-1966,
he was appointed as Tax-Collector. Thereafter, under Resolution No 64, dated 5-1-1968, of the Standing Committee, the petitioner was ordered
to officiate as a clerk in the General Administration section. The President of the Municipal Committee felt that the transfer of the petitioner''s
service to the administrative wing of the Municipal Committee was not regular and, therefore, sent him back to his original post of the Tax-
Collector. The President of the Municipal Committee seems to rely on the communication of the Secretariat dated 28-5-1968 wherein it was
indicated that for the purposes of promotion, the administrative wing and the revenue wing must be considered to be separate and seniority of their
officers for the purposes of promotion must be taken as they obtain in the respective wing of the Municipality. The communication adverted to, it
would be observed, discouraged promotion from revenue department to administrative department. By a resolution dated 5-12-1968, the
petitioner was appointed to officiate as revenue Sub-Inspector. Thereafter, on 4-12-1969, the Municipal Committee was dissolved and an
Officer-in-Charge appointed u/s 328 of the Municipalities Act. The Officer-in-Charge kept the petitioner on the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector
vide, his order dated 25-6-1970 temporarily for two years. The Officer-in-Charge subsequently by his order dated 6-5-1972 confirmed the
petitioner on the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector.
It appears that one Shri Benkat Singh an employee of Mehgaon Municipal Committee complained to Collector, Bhind alleging that the
appointment of petitioner on the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector was done irregularly. The Collector, exercising his powers of superintendence and
control, cancelled the confirmation of the petitioner, though he was not reverted from the post of the Revenue Sub-Inspector. Thereafter, there had
been a selection by the Selection Committee for the post of Revenue Inspector of the Municipal Committee. The Selection Committee
recommended the appointment of Kammodsingh respondent No. 3 and by an order dated 8-10-1974, he was appointed on the post.
The petitioner now challenges this appointment contending that he has not been fairly dealt with. He being the senior most and most qualified ought
to have been selected to the post of Revenue Inspector. Above all, he had been functioning as a Revenue Sub-Inspector since 5-12-1968. He is
also seeking aid of the Secretariat communication wherein it was directed that while promoting, only the officiation in the Revenue department for
the purposes of judging seniority ought to be considered for higher post in the Revenue Department and that the officiation in the Administrative
Department should not be counted for judging seniority when the promotion is to the post in the Revenue Department. The petitioner submitted his
representation against this appointment before the District Collector but it had not been decided. Subsequently, a post of Revenue Inspector fell
vacant and respondent No. 3 applied for the post. The matter was again referred to Selection Committee for selection of a suitable candidate to
the post. The Selection Committee selected respondent No. 3 for the post and consequently, the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Revenue
Inspector with effect from 3-10-1974.
The petitioner has raised two contentions. In the first place, it is -urged that the Collector acted illegally in reverting him from the post of Revenue
Sub-Inspector on which post he had been confirmed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Municipality. And secondly, he, being the senior-most
Revenue Sub-Inspector, should have been selected for the post of Revenue Inspector. It has also been contended that the Selection Committee
overlooked the policy decision of the Government that while computing seniority, officiation in the Revenue Department alone should have been
considered. We would, therefore, refer to the relevant rules to see if the petitioner''s contentions are borne out by the recruitment rules.
The appointment of staff of the Municipalities is governed by sections 94 and 95 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Under sub-section (2) of
section 94, subject to rules framed u/s 95, a Municipal Council shall appoint a Sanitary Inspector, an Overseer, a Revenue Inspector and an
Accountant and may appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for efficient discharge of its duties. Under sub-
section (4), the appointment of Revenue Officer, Accounts Officer, Sanitary Inspector, Overseer and Accountant shall be subject to confirmation
by the State Government and no such post or the post of any other officer or servant as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf
shall be created or abolished and no alteration in the emoluments thereof, shall be made without the previous approval of the State Government
and every appointment to and dismissal from such post shall be subject to like approval. Under sub-section (8), the State Government may
prescribe the classes or grades of officers and servants who shall have the right to appeal from the decision of the Chief Municipal Officer, the
Standing Committee, the prescribed authority or any other authority empowered in this behalf inflicting any departmental punishment other than
censor. u/s 95, the State Government may make rules in respect of qualification, recruitment, appointment and other service conditions for the
municipal employees other than a member of the State Municipal service.
The Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 355 read with section 95 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, came into force on 31-5-1968, Rule 4
indicates the methods of recruitment which are laid down as (a) by direct recruitment; (b) by a promotion of a person employed in the Council; and
lastly, (c) by transfer or deputation of a person serving in connection with the affairs of any local authority or of the State. Rule 11 provides for
vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment. We are concerned with Rule 12 which provides for recruitment by promotion. Rule 12 runs as under:
12. Recruitment by Promotion.--(1) Recruitment by promotion shall be made on consideration of merits, seniority being taken into account where
merits are equal.
(2). In selecting candidates for promotion regard shall be had to--
(i) tact and energy;
(ii) intelligence and ability;
(iii) integrity; and
(iv) previous record of service.
(3) In the case of post carrying a maximum monthly salary not exceeding Rs. 95 the Chief Municipal Officer and in other cases the District
Selection Committee shall consider the cases of all the eligible candidates and may in his or its discretion interview any of the candidates.
(4) The Chief Municipal Officer or the District Selection Committee as the case may be will select candidates and will arrange their names in the
order of preference. Where the Chief Municipal Officer is the competent authority for making appointments, the orders will be issued by him. In
other cases the District Selection Committee shall recommend the names of the candidates found suitable for promotion to the Standing
Committee. The Standing Committee will then make a final selection.
Rule 12, it would be observed, emphasises on merits as the criterion for promotion and seniority has to be taken into account where merits are
equal. Sub-rule (3) enjoins that in case of posts carrying a maximum monthly salary not exceeding Rs. 95 the Chief Municipal Officer and in other
cases, the District Selection Committee shall consider the cases of all eligible candidates. It would at once be seen that the petitioner was not
selected as a Revenue Sub-Inspector by the District Selection Committee. His appointment on the post of a Revenue Sub-Inspector was,
therefore, clearly in violation of Rule 12. The appointment was inherently bad and, therefore, the Collector was justified in cancelling the
confirmation of the petitioner. We do not think that the order dated 6-12-1974 by which the petitioner was reverted to the post of Tax Collector
could be said to be illegal. That being so, his officiation during the period till he had not been reverted could not legitimately be taken into
consideration by the Selection Committee. When the Selection Committee met to select the Revenue Inspector, they found respondent No. 3 as
the most meritorious amongst the candidates before them. The claim of the petitioner that he was senior and he had the longest officiation as
Revenue Sub-Inspector could not also legitimately be pressed into service for advancing his claim, his appointment on that post not having been
done in accordance with Rule 12.
Lastly, there was no hurdle which had to be cleared for selecting the respondent No. 3. A person from other department and from the other wing
of the Municipality could be considered for promotion to the post as indicated by Rule 4. The Secretariat memo adverted to by the petitioner
appears to have lost its force after coming into force of the rules and the Selection Committee was wholly justified in ignoring such contentions.
We, therefore, do not see any ground on which the appointment of respondent No. 3 could be challenged or it could be said that the claims of
petitioner were ignored by the Selection Committee or the Municipal authorities.
The petition fails and is dismissed.
In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.