M P RANGA RAO Vs. P BADRINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 25-6-1971 in W. P. No. 5890 of 1970. The third respondent in the writ petition is the appellant in W. A. No. 197 of 1971. The State of Andhra Pradesh who is the first respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 215 of 1971. The questions of consideration in both the Writ appeals are identical and hence both the appeals are considered together in this judgment.

(2.) The first respondent in both the with appeals is the petitioner in the Writ petition. He was appointed as a sub-overseer in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in the year 1955. Later on this post was re-designated as Supervisor. In a vacancy in the post of Assistant City Planner, he was posted in July, 1970. He stated that the Standing Committee passed a unanimous resolution recommending his case for permanently posting him in the post and the Commissioner and Mayor also strongly recommended his case. After the suppression of the Municipal Corporation the Special Officer also recommended that the should be made permanent in that post. The Government, however passed an order posting the third respondent in the writ petition (appellant in the W. A. No. 197 of 1971) as the Assistant City Planner in G. O. Ms. No. 914 health, Municipal Administration (L-2) Dept. dt. 8-12-1970. The first respondent herein filed the Writ Petition for the issue of a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ, direction or order declaring that the action of the Government in posting the third respondent in the Writ Petition as Assistant City Planner under the said G. O. was illegal and void. He contended that the appointing authority in respect of the said post was the Corporation (Special Officer after suppression ) and the Government has no powers to appoint the third respondent as the Assistant City Planner. Assuming, without admitting that the said post could be filed by the Government, it cannot post a person who is not a member of the local Government service or a municipal employee to the said post and as the third respondent was not a member of the local Government service he could not be appointed to the post. Lastly, it was contended that he could not be appointed also for the reasoning that he was not a Mulki within the meaning of Mulki rules.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the third respondent as well as the Government that the Government was entitled to make the appointment under Section 132 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and that the appointment was properly made. The contention that a person who is not a member of the local Government service or a Municipal employee or a Mulki cannot be appointed to the post was denied. They further contended that the petitioner was not possessed of the necessary qualifications for the post of Assistant City Planner. He was not posted in July, 1970 in the vacancy in the post of Assistant Planner, but was placed in additional charge of the post till alternative arrangements were made by the Government. In the circumstances they said that he had no locus standi to file the Writ Petition.