3 thereafter filed a claim petition before the Services Tribunal companystituted under the U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act, 1976 but subsequently he withdrew the same on 23.12.79.
The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court challenging the order of the Commission.
He placed reliance on Ramesher Prasad and Other v. Municipal Board, Pilibhit, AIR 1958 All.
A learned Single Judge B.D. Agarwal, J. of the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order of the Commissioner on the findings that the appellants appointment was made in violation of the Government Order dated 10.4.50.
Thereafter he filed a repre sentation to the Prescribed Authority i.e. the Commissioner Varanasi challenging appellants appointment to the post of Tax Inspector.
After heating learned companynsel for the parties at length we are of the opinion that the High Court companymitted manifest error in upholding the order of the Commissioner.
The High Court upheld the order of the Prescribed Authority on these findings.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.1986 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No.
The learned companynsel further urged that the aforesaid decision was approved by two other learned Judges of the High Court in Ram Kripal Garg v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No.
The Commissioner by his order dated 13.2.80 set aside the order of the Municipal Board and cancelled the appellants appointment on the ground that the Respondent No.
3 was entitled to promotion in pursuance to the direc tions companytained in the Government Order dated 10.4.50.
The basic question which arises for companysideration is whether the post of Tax Inspector, under the provision of the U.P. Municipal ities Act, 1916 hereinafter referred to as the Act or any rules framed thereunder or under the Government Order dated 10.4.1950 the post of Tax Inspector was required to be filled by promotion only and number by direct recruitment.
The Prescribed Authority i.e., the Commissioner as well as the High Court both proceeded on the assumption that the Govern ment Order dated 10.4.50 had been issued by the State Gov ernment in exercise of its supervisory powers under s. 71 of the Act and as such it was binding on the Municipal Board, and the directions companytained therein required the Municipal Board to fill up the post of Tax Inspector exclusively by promotion and number by direct recruitment.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Respondent No.
M. Khanna, R.B. Misra and Ms. Anil Katiyar for the Respondents.
The Municipal Board, Jaunpur issued advertisement invit ing applications for appointment to the post of Tax Inspec tor.
In making the appellants appointment as a direct recruit, the Municipal Board acted in violation of the directions companytained in the aforesaid Government Order, therefore, the appellants appointment was rendered illegal.
The advertisement stated that the existing employees of the Revenue Department of the Municipal Board were eligible for companysideration along with outsiders.
Hence this appeal.
4556 of 1965 dated 16.9.66 and Inder Bahadur v. Municipal Board, Mirzapur and Others, Writ Petition No.
2967 of 1986.
Hari Mohan Respond ent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated July 28, 1986 dismissing the appellants petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Commissioner Varanasi Division dated February 13, 1980 setting aside the order of Municipal Board, Jaunpur appointing the appellant as Tax Inspector.
Satish Chandra, R.B. Mehrotra, S.K. Mehta, Atul Nanda and Aman Vachher for the Appellant.
3 who was the senior most Tax Collector working in the Municipal Board, Jaunpur was called for interview but he refused to appear for the interview on the plea that the post of Tax Inspector should have been exclusively filled by promotion and as he was the seniormost Tax Collector he should be promoted without companysidering any outsider.
The Municipal Board ignored, his claim and selected the appel lant, and appointed him to the post of the Tax Inspector by the order dated 11.3.78.
1793 of 1980.
