(1.) the first respondent was appointed by the commissioner of the corporation of city of Bangalore-second respondent to the post of deputy commissioner in the establishment of the second respondent. Government made an order on 27-6-1992 appointing third respondent as deputy commissioner to the Bangalore city corporation. The first respondent challenged the validity of this appointment by contending that under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter, for short, referred to as the act) the respondent 3 could not be appointed by filing a writ petition out of which this appeal arises.
(2.) it appears, the first respondent who was a revenue officer was promoted to the post of deputy commissioner on the recommendation of the departmental promotion committee on officiating basis in the vacancy arising on the retirement of one a. Shankarappa. The proposals were sent by the commissioner to the government for approval of the appointment. However, in anticipation of such approval the first respondent was appointed as deputy commissioner, subsequently, when the appointment of the first respondent was not approved by the government and third respondent was appointed in his place, the same has been challenged in the petition in question.
(3.) the appellant contended that the government is the appointing authority to the cadre of deputy commissioners in the establishment of the second respondent in terms of sections 82 and 84 of the act read with Rule 26 of the Karnataka municipal corporations rules, 1977 (for short 'the rules'). It took the stand that the departmental promotion committee in the corporation could not have made any recommendation and it was also contended that the appointment of the first respondent could not be approved by the government and therefore the impugned notification came to be issued appointing the third respondent as the deputy commissioner. It is stated that he assumed charge of the office of the deputy commissioner (revenue) on 29-6-1992.