UTTAM Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DARWHA
LAWS(BOM)-1972-8-18
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on August 11,1972

UTTAM Appellant
VERSUS
Municipal Council, Darwha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Dharmadhikari, J. - (1.) - The petitioners in this writ petition, who were duly qualified to be appointed as teachers, had applied to the Municipal Council, Darwha, for appointment as teachers in the Marathi primary Schools in the year 1971. It is an admitted position that the Municipal Council, Darwha, runs Marathi Primary Schools and as the petitioner came to know that there were vacancies for the posts of primary teachers in the schools run by the Municipal Council, Darwha they filed applications for such appointments. The application for appointment of petitioner No.3 Anil Baliramji Vinchurkar was forwarded by the Employment Exchange to the Municipal Council Darwha and other petitioner had applied directly to the Municipal Council. It seems, apart from the petitioners, the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 had also applied for such appointments.
(2.) After receiving these applications the Municipal Council, as a whole, held an interview on 26th July,1971 and it is alleged by the petitioners that about 13 persons, who were members of the Municipal Council, and the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council were present at the time of this interview. During the course of interview the petitioners, were asked to go back on the ground that trained teachers were not required by the Municipal Council. This allegation made by the petitioners is not disputed by the Municipal council in its return. Therefore, it is apparent that the cases of the petitioners were not considered by the Municipal Council for the appointments as teachers, though they were trained and qualified. The respondents Nos. 3 to 7. It is not disputed that the respondents Nos.3 to 7 were not trained. Thereafter, a resolution was passed on 30th July,1971 by the Standing Committee of the Council appointing the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 as teachers in the Marathi Primary Schools run by the Municipal Council, Darwha. These appointments are challenged in this writ petition by the petitioners.
(3.) It is contended by Mr. Chandurkar on behalf of the petitioners that the whole procedure followed by the Municipal Council while appointing the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 as teachers was illegal and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. it is contended by Mr. Chandurkar that the petitioners have been denied the equal opportunity in the matter of public employment as the consideration of their cases was shut out on the ground that they were trained teachers. it is further contended that the Municipal Council has not followed the Rules framed under section 25(g) of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act,1922, known as Recruitment Rules. Rule 9 of these Rules provides that when an appointment is to be made to any post, by the Municipal Committee, it shall invite applications by a notice to be published at the Committee's office and in one or more leading newspapers. Rule 10 of these Rules provides for constitution of a Selection Committee, who is required to make recommendation in this behalf. Rule 6 of the Rules provides for educational and other qualifications of a candidate for the posts and Rule 7(c) lays down that a Trained Teacher's Certificate, primary Grade, is a necessary qualification for a person to be appointed as a teacher in the Primary School provided that the Municipal Council may, with the previous permission of the District Inspector of Schools, accept a lesser qualification in any individual case. Rule 5 of these Recruitment Rules provides that a candidate has to furnish satisfactory evidence relating to the matters enumerated therein. According to Mr. Chandurkar, in view of the provisions of section 346 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act,1965, these Rules are still in force and the Municipal Council has failed to follow them. In this view of the matter, it is contended that the appointments of the respondents 3 to 7 are also contrary to Rules.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.