RAVANI - (1.) The petitioner is challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 as Additional Medical Officer of Health and also prays that he appointed to the same post. It is inter alia contended and prayed that respondent No. 4 is not qualified to hold the post in question and therefore, a writ of quo warranto be issued directing respondent No. 4 to vacate the post. The petitioner has also challenged the Constitutional validity of Sec. 53(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') as being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as being inconsistent with the provisions of Sec. 54(3) of the Act. Section 53 of the Act empowers the Municipal Corporation to make appointment of certain Municipal Officers and Sec. 54 provides for constitution of staff selection committee in respect of certain posts.
(2.) The Facts : The petitioner is serving as Deputy Health Officer with respondent No. 3-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Respondent No. 4 was also holding the same post prior to his appointment as Additional Medical Officer of Health. The post of Additional Medical Officer of Health was created some time in June 1978. It was occupied by one Dr. Vyas till 30/06/1982. After the retirement of Dr. Vyas, on 1/07/1982, the petitioner was given additional charge of the post. On 18/10/1982, the post was advertised and applications were invited. On 19/11/1982, the petitioner was provisionally appointed on the post for a period of one year. The Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation formed a selection committee consisting of : (1) Superintendent of Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, (2) Deputy Municipal Commissioner (General), (3) Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Personnel) and (4) Medical Officer (Health). This Selection Committee held interview of the candidates who applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 18/10/1982.
(3.) There were 9 candidates. Out of them 3 were selected. The petitioner was given rank No. 1. One Dr. Mohanti was given second rank while respondent No. 4 was given third rank. The Standing Committee passed resolution recommending the appointment of petitioner for a period of one year. However, the General Board of the Corporation took decision on 27/09/1983 not to approve the appointment of the petitioner. Consequently, the Municipal Commissioner passed order dated 29/11/1983, reverting the petitioner to his original post. Thereafter the post remained vacant for some time. The Municipal Commissioner again wrote a letter to the Corporation for re-consideration of the proposal for appointment of the petitioner on the post. However, the Corporation did not agree with the recommendation of the Commissioner.;