Commissioner, Corporation Of Madras v. Madras Corporation Teachers' Mandram And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Appeals Nos. 15074-75 of 1996, decided on November 8, 1996

Disposition

allowed

Advocates

R. Mohan, Senior Advocate (R. Nedumaran, V.G Pragasam and Ms Pushpa Rajan, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant;
Naveen R. Nath and S.R Bhat, Advocates, for the Respondents.

Judges

Justice K. Ramaswamy

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals arise from a 2 August 1994 order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 708 and 1685 of 1993. The appellant-Municipal Corporation had a dual policy for filling the post of Education Officer: (i) promotion from within its subordinate educational cadre and (ii) deputation/transfer of officers from the State Government service. After the post of Education Officer was upgraded to Deputy Director, the Corporation proposed to fill it by transfer of a Government officer to supervise educational standards. The employees’ union (respondents) challenged this action before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal upheld the Corporation’s power to fill the upgraded post but directed the Corporation to:
“create a post in the cadre equivalent to District Educational Officer … and after a minimum period of experience allow advancement to the higher post in the rank of Chief Educational Officer.”
Aggrieved, the Corporation filed the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether an Administrative Tribunal can direct the creation of a new post within a municipal corporation.
Whether the Tribunal is competent to prescribe minimum experience or other qualifications for such a post.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant-Corporation’s Arguments

The power to create posts and to prescribe qualifications or experience for holding them is part of the Government’s legal or executive policy.
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to intrude upon that policy by directing creation of posts or stipulating qualifications.

Respondents’ Arguments

Counsel could not effectively counter the appellant’s contention on jurisdiction.
He sought to justify the Tribunal’s order on the ground that filling the upgraded post by transfer would adversely affect in-service candidates.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant that determining whether to create a post and specifying the qualifications for it are matters of governmental policy beyond judicial or quasi-judicial mandate. The Court reaffirmed the settled legal principle that courts and tribunals cannot compel the executive to create posts or prescribe eligibility criteria. Consequently, the Tribunal’s directive was characterised as “clearly illegal.” The Court did not address the respondents’ contention regarding adverse impact on in-service candidates, holding that it was not a subject-matter of the present appeals.

Holding and Implications

Appeals Allowed; Tribunal’s directive set aside.

Immediate Effect: The Corporation is no longer bound by the Tribunal’s order to create a post equivalent to District Educational Officer or to prescribe the mandated experience for promotion to Chief Educational Officer. Costs were not awarded.
Broader Implication: The decision reiterates that administrative tribunals and courts cannot intrude upon the executive domain of creating posts or fixing service qualifications, preserving separation of powers but setting no new substantive precedent.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Commissioner, Corporation Of Madras v. Madras Corporation Teachers' Mandram And Others

Order

1. Leave granted

2. These appeals by special leave arise against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Tamil Nadu passed in OAs. Nos. 708 and 1685 of 1993 on 2-8-1994. The appellant-Corporation had adopted a dual policy of appointment of Education Officers either by promotion from the subordinate cadre or appointment by deputation from government service. It would appear that the post of Education Officer was upgraded to the post of Deputy Director and they sought appointment by transfer of a government officer to fill up the post of Deputy Director to supervise the educational standards in the Corporation. The respondents-Union challenged the said action of the appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while upholding the power of the Corporation had directed thus:

“Therefore, a post in the cadre of the Corporation equivalent to the District Educational Officer should be created to which persons from the Corporation's cadre could be appointed and such persons could be considered after a minimum period of experience for advancement to the higher post in the rank of Chief Educational Officer to be in overall charge of the Corporation's Educational Department.”

3. Feeling aggrieved against this order, this appeal has been filed. Shri R. Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation, has contended that the creation of the post and prescription of qualifications are the legal policy of the Government or the executive policy of the Government. The Tribunal cannot give the direction to create a post or to prescribe the experience as may be required as an incumbent to hold the post. We find that there is force in the contention.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, in fairness, was unable to meet the contention but he sought to sustain this order on the ground that appointment by transfer affects in-service candidates. We cannot go into it because it is not the subject-matter in this case. Under these circumstances, as stated earlier, the question is whether the Tribunal can give direction to create a post or to prescribe the minimum qualifications for the post? It is a well-settled legal position that it is the legal or executive policy of the Government to create a post or to prescribe the qualifications for the post. The court or tribunal is devoid of power to give such direction. The impugned direction, therefore, is clearly illegal.

5. The appeals are accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances, without costs.

Commissioner, Corporation Of Madras v. Madras Corporation Teachers' Mandram And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant-Corporation’s Arguments

Respondents’ Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Commissioner, Corporation Of Madras v. Madras Corporation Teachers' Mandram And Others

Comments