1989 (11) TMI 313 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the appointment of the Tax Inspector by the Municipal Board.
2. Interpretation of the Government Order dated 10.4.50 regarding the appointment process.
3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner Varanasi in setting aside the appointment.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice in setting aside the appointment without a hearing.

Analysis:

The appeal challenged the High Court's judgment dismissing a petition under Article 226, which questioned the appointment of the appellant as Tax Inspector by the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board selected the appellant over a senior Tax Collector, leading to a dispute. The Commissioner Varanasi set aside the appointment citing a Government Order from 1950. The High Court upheld this decision, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The main issue was whether the appointment of the Tax Inspector should have been through promotion only, as per the Government Order dated 10.4.50. The Court analyzed the Order and previous judgments to determine its validity. It was concluded that the Order did not mandate exclusive promotion for the Tax Inspector post, allowing for direct recruitment as well. The Court found that the Municipal Board acted within its jurisdiction by appointing the appellant directly.

Another crucial aspect was the violation of natural justice in setting aside the appointment without a hearing. The Court emphasized that the appellant had a vested right in the appointment, which could not be revoked without due process. The Commissioner's order, lacking a hearing for the appellant, was deemed illegal and void. The High Court's failure to address this violation led to the appeal's success in setting aside both the High Court and Commissioner's orders.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court and Commissioner's decisions. The Court highlighted the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring proper procedures in administrative actions. The appellant's appointment as Tax Inspector was upheld, emphasizing the need for fairness and due process in such matters.