The expression "appointing Authority" in Regulation 11 of the Calcutta Corporation Service Regulations should be interpreted in the context of each particular provision and there is no reason why the said expression should be assigned one uniform meaning throughout the Calcutta Municipal Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder.

CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE, B. C. RAY, JJ.

( 1 ) ARUN Kumar Sen, the respondent No. 1 in this appeal and two others were initially appointed to officiate temporally as a Municipal Pleader, such Corporation of Calcutta, pending filling up of these posts permanently. On March 10, 1962 he had joined in the said post. Thereafter, the Municipal Authorities had issued advertisements inviting applications for filling up the permanent vacancies in the said posts of Municipal Pleaders. Along with others the respondent No. 1 Arun Kumar Sen, had applied. The Standing Finance Committee of the Corporation of Calcutta and its meeting held on 16th September, 1963 resolved that the present respondent No. 1, Arun Kumar Sen, and two others whose names had been recommended by the Municipal Service Commission "be permanently appointed to the three posts of Municipal Pleaders, Law Department in the grade of Rs. 200-300/- subject to the service and other allied regulations of the Corporation. " On November 4, 1963 the respondent No. 1 had joined the said post. The Corporation of Calcutta has claimed that Arun Kumar Sen, the respondent No. 1, was put on probation according to the Regulation 10 of the Service Regulations of the Corporation of Calcutta. On December 18, 1964 the Chief Law Officer, Corporation of Calcutta had recommended that the period of probation of the respondent No. 1 be extended and the Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta by his letter dated April 2, 1965 had extended his period of probation for further one year. The respondent No. 1 and two other Municipal Pleaders had objected to the said extension of their probationary periods. They claimed inter alia that they had been permanently appointed and they were not put on probation. According to them the Order of extension of their probationary periods was illegal. On 5th July, 1965 the Chief Law Officer, Corporation of Calcutta issued a notice to the respondent No. 1 stating that he had been directed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta to communicate to him the full order passed by him. "i do not consider the work of Shri A. K. Sen, Municipal Magistrate's Court lawyer, to be satisfactory. He is, therefore, not confirmed and is discharged. He may be paid one month's pay in lieu of notice. " The respondent No. 1 had made representations against his discharge from service. Thereafter, he moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and obtained Civil Rule No. 840 (W) of 1965. D. Basu, J. made the said Rule absolute. The learned Single Judge quashed the said order and commanded and restrained the respondents therein from giving any effect to the said impugned order. The learned Judge, however, made it clear that the respondent would be at liberty to make fresh orders in accordance with law. The Corporation of Calcutta being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of D. Basu, J, has preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

( 2 ) THE principal point in this appeal is whether or not the Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta as the Appointing Authority was entitled to discharge the respondent No. 1 from service in terms of Regulation 11 of the Service Regulations of the Corporation of Calcutta. When the respondent No. 1 was appointed the provision at S. 80 of the Calcutta Municipal Act before the same amended by S. 27 of the Calcutta Municipal (2nd Amendment) Act, 1964 was that appointments to the Corporation of Calcutta establishment shall be made by the Corporation of Calcutta, if the maximum salary of the office was not below rs. 250/ -. The Commissioner was the authority empowered to make appointments in all other cases. Therefore, when the petitioner was appointed, the Corporation of Calcutta was the authority empowered to make his appointment. Admittedly, the Standing Finance Committee had appointed the respondent No. 1 as a Municipal Pleaer, D. Basu, J. has found that the respondent No. 1 was appointed on probation and rejected his contention

Click Here to Read the rest of this document