Kurian Joseph, J. - (1.) The respondent Corporation, by notice dated 12.10.1992, invited applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Traffic Inspectors. As per Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Regulation No. 1 dated 16.04.1974, the method of appointment is 75% by promotion and 25% by nomination, meaning thereby direct recruitment. However, Regulation 6 made it clear that "in the event of an appointment by promotion, if no candidate is found suitable for such promotion, the appointment may be made by nomination, Provided that before taking the recourse to nomination in such cases the reasons for not making the appointment by promotion shall be recorded in writing by the appointing authority." Apparently, in exercise of its power under Regulation 6 only, the applications were invited for appointment of 16 posts of Assistant Traffic Inspectors by direct recruitment.
(2.) There were 35 posts in the cadre, out of which, 16 posts were sought to be filled up. The educational qualification, as per the Notification, reads as follows:- "D. Educational Eligibility 1) Age Limit 28 years for Scheduled Caste 5 yrs Relaxed 2) Graduate in any Course from Recognised University 3) 5 years experience in Transport Undertaking."
(3.) It appears that none of the applicants possessed the required experience of five years, which is notified as part of educational qualification. It appears that the Corporation, in exercise of its powers to relax the qualification as per the Transport Resolution No. 119 dated 14.05.1991, relaxed the provision of experience and selected 15 candidates and appointed them as Assistant Traffic Inspectors. That has been challenged by the respondent - Trade Union on the ground that the candidates did not possess the required experience and hence, they were ineligible for the appointment.;