SYED KASIM Vs. ADDL COMMR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Khandekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kilor, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

(2.) THE present writ petition is directed against the order dated 29-6-1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as order of Termination dated 20-7-1991 passed by the Municipal Council - respondent No. 2.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the year 1986, some vacancies arose in the Primary School run by Municipal Council in the post of assistant Teacher. The petitioner's name was recommended by the Employment exchange. The petitioner appeared before the Interview Committee on 12-9-1986 and was selected by the Committee and therefore, the Municipal Council, vide resolution dated 17-9-1986 appointed the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the primary School. Pursuant to the said resolution, the appointment order dated 18-9-1986 was issued by the Municipal Council and the Education department granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner on 18-2-1988. The learned counsel states that the Chief Officer - respondent No. 2 made a complaint to the collector that the appointment of the petitioner was made without prior approval of the Regional Director, Municipal Administration, as required under section 76 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial townships Act, 1965 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The collector, vide order dated 21-8-1988, set aside the Resolution dated 17-9-1986 passed by the Municipal Council on the ground that the post could not have been created without prior approval of the Regional Director, Municipal administration. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of the Collector, filed Revision before the Additional Commissioner and the Additional commissioner, vide order dated 29-6-1991, though held that the Collector did not have power under section 308 of the Act to set aside the Resolution of the municipal Council dated 17-9-1986, however, observed that he had power to stay the execution of the said Resolution, if the same is illegal and unlawful. At the same time, affirmed the observations of the Collector that the Municipal Council should have waited till adequate and proper sanctions is received from the appropriate authority and it is only thereafter the appointment of the petitioner ought to have been made by the Municipal Council. It is further submitted that the Municipal Council, in view of the order dated 29-6-1991 passed by the additional Commissioner, terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 20-7-1991. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order, constrained to file the present writ petition.