Back
1958 Supreme(All) 195
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. Sahai, J.
BHAGWATI PRASAD MISRA - Appellant
Versus
UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 821 Of 1957
Decided On : 11/03/1958
G.N.VARMA, S.S.SRIVASTAVA
A rule made under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 172 of the District Boards Act is made only for the guidance of a board and disregard of that rule cannot be an actionable wrong.
Headnote:
DISTRICT BOARD - SECRETARY - APPOINTMENT - QUALIFICATIONS - RULE 1 OF THE RULES RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARIES OF DISTRICT BOARDS - INTERPRETATION - TERM OF THE BOARD - MEANING OF - APPOINTMENT OF A PERSON AS SECRETARY OF A BOARD WHEN HIS FATHER-IN-LAW WAS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD - VALIDITY OF.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the District Board of Basti, and a taxpayer of the said Board, challenged the appointment of the respondent as the Secretary of the Board on the grounds that he was not qualified for the post, that he did not file the required medical certificate and riding certificate, and that his appointment was influenced by his father-in-law, who was a member of the Board at the time of his appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent was not disqualified for the post, as he had filed the required medical certificate and riding certificate before joining the post, and that there was no evidence to suggest that his appointment was influenced by his father-in-law.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was qualified for the post of Secretary of the Board? 2. Whether the respondent's appointment was influenced by his father-in-law? 3. Whether the appointment of the respondent was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the respondent was qualified for the post of Secretary of the Board, as he had filed the required medical certificate and riding certificate before joining the post. 2. The Court held that there was no evidence to suggest that the respondent's appointment was influenced by his father-in-law. 3. The Court held that the appointment of the respondent was valid.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition.
( 1 ) THE petitioner No. 1 Sri Bhagwati Prasad Misra is a member of the District Board of Basti (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and the petitioner No. 2 is a taxpayer of the said Board. The board invited applications from persons qualified to be appointed as Secretary of the said Board by putting an advertisement in the issue of the Amrita Bazar Patrika of 26-10-1955. The last date for receiving the applications was 10-11-1955. According to the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the petition the respondent No. 4 along with 58 others applied for the said post. It is the petitioners case that the respondent No. 4 Sri Mrigendra Nath Srivastva was not qualified for the said appointment, firstly, because he is the son-in-law of one Sri Kripa Shankar, parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Minister of U. P. , and who was on 10-11-1955 a member of the Board and, secondly, because he (the respondent No. 4) did not file the required medical certificate as also the riding certificate. One of the applicants for the said post was one Kailash Shankar who is said to be the grandson of the petitioner No. 2. On 6th of November. 1955, Sri Kripa Shankar submitted his resignation from the office of member of the Board and on 25-12-1955 the said resignation was accepted by the respondent No. 6 the Commissioner of Gorakhpur Division. A committee was appointed by the Board to interview the various candidates who had applied for appointment to the post of secretary of the Board. The said Committee is said to have consisted of Sri Tameshwar Prasad, President of the Board, and Sarva Sri Rai Jai Narain, advocate, Ram Shanker Lal, mukhtar, and Dhanuk Dhari and Ram lal who are said to have no educational qualifications. It is further alleged that because of the influence of Sri Kripa Shanker the interview committee were interested in the appointment of the respondent No. 4 Sri Mrigendra Nath Srivastva who was at that time holding the post of executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Basti (respondent No. 5) and therefore selected him. After the selection the respondent No. 4 was appointed as the Secretary of the Board. It is also alleged that after he had been so appointed, the son of the Chairman of the Board was appointed as the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board of Bast. The petitioners have alleged that before these appointments were made it was pointed out to the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 6. e. , the State Government, the District Magistrate, Basti, and the Commissioner, Gorakhpur division, that the whole matter had been pre-arranged and the appointments would not be made on merits and that it had been decided to appoint the respondent No. 4 as the Secretary of the board and the son of the President of the Board as the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, bast. It is admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that before the respondent No. 4 was appointed as Secretary of the Board the Board had referred the matter to the State Government because some difficulty was felt about the interpretation of Rule 1 prescribing qualifications of district Board Secretaries given on page 207 of the District Board Manual, and the State government answered the reference by saying that there could be no objection to the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as the Secretary of the Board on a correct interpretation of the said rule. It is also alleged that in the meeting in which the respondent No. 4 was appointed as the secretary of the Board, members of the Board who were not willing to support the candidature of the respondent No. 4 were prevented from entering the place where the meeting was being held as the meeting was held under a police cordon with the result that out of 57 members only 34 attended the meeting. The petitioners case is that the respondent No. 4 was appointed on the condition that he would furnish certificates of medical fitness and outdoor service and also of being able to ride a horse a
