SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(Mad) 424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Ramaprasada Rao, J.
S. Saradha and another .. .....Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary, Education Department, Madras-9 and others .. .....Respondent(s)
W.P. Nos. 1459 and 1462 of 1973.
Decided On : 09 August 1973

Advocates:
K.K. Venugopal for P. Chidambaram and M.N. Krishnamani, for Petitioners.
T. Sathiadev, the Assistant Government Pleader, R. Thillai Villalan, S. Nainar Sundaram and V. Natarajan, for Respondents.

Validity of interference by Government u/s 87(3).

Headnote:Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919-Section 87-Appointment of supervisor as assistant educational officer-Held, appointment not within Section 87 (1)-Validity of interference by government u/s 87 (3).

       

Order.- W.P. No. 1462 of 1973.- On 16th January, 1966 the post of Assistant Educational Officer fell vacant consequent upon the promotion of the previous incumbent in office as Educational Officer, Corporation of Madras. The post of Assistant Educational Officer comes under the category of Class II Officers in the establishment. For the first time but long after three months from the date when the post fell vacant a note was put up by the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, to the Council to select a panel of two names for the purpose and also to indicate the order of preference. It was also suggested that the first candidate would be appointed as Assistant Educational Officer (North) and the second will be appointed in any leave or other vacancy that may arise. The pool from which such officers could be selected consists of Headmasters of the various Corporation Schools and/or B.T. Supervisors. The names of the writ petitioner, 3rd respondent, S. Saradha, writpetitioner in W.P.No. 1459 of 1973, and another were also recommended. It is seen that the subject was also taken up by the Council, Corporation of Madras, long after three months from the date when the post fell vacant. The Council at its meeting held on 27th June, 1967 resolved to select the Writ petitioner and S. Saradha in the order of preference indicated for the posts as suggested by the Commissioner. But both the selections were to be subject to the approval of Government. On 5th July, 1967, the Commissioner issued proceedings as under:

“In pursuance of the resolution of the Council cited and subject to the conditions mentioned below Thirumathi A. Purna Ramesh, b.a ., b.t., Supervisor (Education), South District, is appointed to act as Assistant Educational Officer North), Corporation of Madras, in he scale of pay of Rs.250-10-300-15-450 plus the usual allowances and a Motor Car Allowance of Rs.100 per mensem vice Thiru O.A. Kanagasabai, b.a., b.t., Assistant Educational Officer (North), promoted as Educational Officer or until further orders.

1. the appointment is subject to her study of Tamil and qualifying within a period of two years from the date of her appointment by passing the ‘Second Class language test in Tamil’ held by the Madras Public Service Commission,

2. the appointment is purely temporary without right of probation and subject to the conditions contained under proviso to section 94 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 as amended by the Madras Act XV of 1965,

3. the appointment is subject to approval of the competent authorities.”

It was made clear that the appointment was purely temporary without right of probation and subject to approval of the competent authorities. Obviously this appointment was made under section 87 (4) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter called the Act. On 14th July, 1967, the Commissioner communicated the resolution of the Council as also his proceedings temporarily appointing the writ petitioner as Class II Officer and requested that the Government may approve of the panel of names and invited the Government’s attention to section 85 (3) (6) of the Act. In the meantime the Writ petitioner took charge as a temporary incumbent to the office. The Government after obtaining certain remarks on the communication sent to them by the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, on 12th October, 1971, pointed out that as the vacancy was not filled up in accordance with section 87 (1) of the Act, it was irregular. They therefore asked the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, to send to the Government a panel of names prepared on the basis of seniority and merit of all the persons qualified for the post for then, to appoint. They referred to the other provisions of section 87 also. It may be noted that when the Government wrote their memo., dated 12th October, 1971, there was no reference to the representa tions by then said to have been made by the 3rd respondent to them. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madra































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top