MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. SHIVRAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 14.8.2000, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for release of bank account from attachment was declined.

(2.) On 2.3.1998, the plaintiff's suit was decreed directing the Municipal Council to consider the case of the plaintiff for promotion as Clerk on the basis of seniority and eligibility with effect from the date when posts of Clerks under 10% quota had fallen vacant. The said decree was affirmed in appeal on 25.7.1998. Since the plaintiff's case was not considered for promotion, the Decree Holder moved an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was decided by the learned Executing Court on 1.10.1999 wherein it was found that the case of the Decree Holder was approved for the appointment on the post of Clerk and the appointment of the Decree Holder was also recommended by the Director, Local Bodies vide letter dated 30.7.1996. In view of the said fact, the stand of the Judgment Debtor that the plaintiff did not appear in the type test is not tenable and, therefore, the Judgment Debtor was directed to reconsider the claim of the Decree Holder in view of the previous resolutions. Since the Decree Holder was still not promoted, the bank account of the petitioner was attached for non compliance of the order dated 1.10.1999 passed by the learned Executing Court. An application for releasing the bank accounts from attachment was declined by the learned Executing Court which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

(3.) Before the learned Executing Court, the Municipal Council took a stand that it passed a resolution on 30.8.1999 to consider the case of the Decree Holder and other employees. A Sub Committee was constituted to consider the claim of the Decree Holder. As per the decision of the Sub Committee on 15.5.2000, the Decree Holder was required to take the type test. Since the Decree Holder refused to take the type test, so she was not considered for promotion to the post of Clerk. It is further stated that three persons senior to the Decree Holder appeared in the type test and two of them have cleared the type test and thus, the decree has been complied with.