GAJANAN KRISHNARAO CHAWANDKE Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a primary school teacher serving with the Municipal Committee, Khamgaon. He joined service on January 18, 1932, and was eventually confirmed. There are six posts in the Select Grade which are open to primary school teachers serving with the Municipal Committee. The question of filling those posts came before the Municipal Committee on April 17, 1953. On that date they called for recommendations from the Education Sub -Committee. That Sub -Committee sent up the names of six teachers. Apparently, the recommendations of the Sub -Committee did not find favour with the General Committee and, therefore, the General Committee referred the matter to the Education Sub -Committee for fresh recommendations. The petitioner's name was originally recommended by the Sub -Committee, but on the second occasion it was not recommended. On March 19, 1953, the Municipal Committee considered the entire question at its general meeting and resolved to appoint the following sis persons in the Select Grade: - (1) G.D. Shegokar. (2) B.N. Rajhansa. (3) H.T. Saraf. (4) R.M. Amle. (5) S.T. Potdar. (6) S.B. Panat. The petitioner was thus not one of those persons who were appointed in the Select Grade by the Municipal Committee. One K.M. Ghatol was also a senior primary school teacher and he preferred an appeal before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Khamgaon, apparently under the rules framed under Section 25(6) of the -C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act against his exclusion from promotion to -the Select Grade. This appeal was allowed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Khamgaon, by the Order dated November 24, 1954. The operative -portion of the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner was: I, therefore, order that the applicant should be given the selection grade. He should1 be given selected grade either out of the teachers described above or the order of selection of either Amle or Saraf should be cancelled and preference given to the applicant. It is for the M.C. to decide whether to cancel Amle's selection grade or Saraf's but the applicant should be given the selection grade.

(2.) THE Municipal Committee, purporting to comply with the aforesaid order,, reviewed the entire position and passed a resolution on March 14, 1955, cancelling the select grade of four teachers, S.B. Panat, S.T. Potdar, H.M. Amle and H.T. Saraf, and instead appointed the following six teachers to the select: grade with effect from March 1, 1955: - (1) D.N. Bhangadbhatti. (2) N.M. Mandvekar. (3) G.D. Shegokar. (4) B.N. Rajhansa. (5) G.K. Chawandke (Petitioner). (6) K.M. Ghatol. This was by a resolution of the General Meeting of the Municipal Committee -held on April 6, 1958.

(3.) THE petitioner and the other three teachers, who were affected by the order -of the Sub -Divisional Officer, moved the Municipal Committee for preferring an appeal against the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer. The Municipal Committee then went up in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner against the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer. That appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. In that appeal one of the contentions raised on behalf of the Municipal Committee was that the appeal before the Sub -Divisional Officer was incompetent. This contention was overruled by the Deputy Commissioner and the appeal of the Municipal Committee was dismissed on merits. The Municipal Committee then went up to the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, in revision and the application for revision was transferred to the Divisional Officer, Vidarbha. The Divisional Officer dismissed the revision application on the ground that the application was incompetent.