Appeal Nos
714 16 of 1993
From the Judgment and Order dated 14992 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
WP Nos 20731 23861  24353 of 1991
AND Civil Appeal No 717 of 1993
39 From the Judgment and Order dated 91291 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
WPNo
11114 of 1990
DV Sehgal Ravi Kiran Jain Sunil Gupta Jamshed Bey HK Puri Mrs Rani Chhabra and RB Misra for the Appellants
Sabir Hussain Saif Shakeel Ahmed Syed Bahar U Barqi Anis Suhrawardy and Vijay Hansaria for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL J
Special leave granted
As common questions of fact and law are involved in all the above cases as such they are disposed of by one single order
First proviso to Section 9 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act 1916 hereinafter referred to as the Act  provided for nomination of only one woman as a member of the Municipal Board by the State Government
Further there was no provision permitting the State Government to cancel the nomination of such member at its pleasure
One Smt
Sarla Devi was nominated by the State Government as the sole Woman member for the Shahjahanpur Municipal Board hereinafter referred to as the Board in January 1989
By UP Ordinance No 2 of 1990 later on succeeded by Ordinance No 8 of 1990 and eventually replaced by UP Act No 19 of 1990 the aforesaid first proviso to Section 9 of the Act was substituted by another proviso which made provision for the nomination of two women members by the State Government
Further a fourth proviso was also added to Section 9 of the Act which provided that the nomination of the aforesaid two members was at the pleasure of the State Government
The aforesaid Ordinance No 2 of 1990 was promulgated on 1521990
Soon thereafter on 1921990 a general notification was issued by the State Government cancelling of nominations of Women members in several Municipal Boards in Uttar Pradesh
The nomination of Smt
Sarla Devi also stood cancelled
On 1941990 the State Government nominated Smt
Abida and Hazra Khatoon as members of the Board under the newly introduced fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act
The total strength of the Board was 37 including two nominated women members
On 2271991 Mohd Iqbal was the President of the Board and Shri Om Narain Agarwal was the Vice President of the Board
Some members of the Board on 40 2271991initiated no confidence motion against Mohd Iqbal before the District Magistrate in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 87 A of the Act
The District Magistrate fixed 1281991 for consideration of the no confidence motion
In the meantime the State Government on 281991 in exercise of its powers under the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act issued notification cancelling the nominations of Smt
Abida and Hazra Khatoon and in their place nominated Smt
Shyama Devi and Smt
Baijanti Devi as the two women members of the Board
On 981991 Mohd Iqbal filed a Writ Petition No 20731 of 1991 in the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act as well as the notification dated 281991 whereby the nomina tions of Smt
Abida and Hazra Khatoon were cancelled and in their place Smt
Shyama Devi and Smt
Baijanti Devi were nominated
Mohd lqbal also challenged the proceedings of no confidence motion initiated against him
The High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition passed an interim order stating that outcome of the no confidence proceedings shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition but did not grant any stay of no confidence proceedings
Shyama Devi and Smt
Baijanti Devi participated in the meeting held on 1281991 and so far as Smt
Abida and Hazra Khatoon are concerned they neither attended the said meeting nor claimed any right to attend the same
In the aforesaid meeting held on 1281991 20 members of the Board voted in favour of the no confidence motion out of the total strength of 37 members of the Board
After the no confidence motion dated 1281991 having been passed against Mohd lqbal a casual vacancy arose in the Office of the President of the Board by virtue of Section 47 A of the Act and Shri Om Narain the then Vice President was elected as President of the Board
Om Narain took charge of the said Office and continued to function as President thereafter
Mohd Iqbal then filed another Writ Petition No 23861 of 1991 on 20th August 1991 challenging the no confidence motion dated 1281991 passed against him
The High Court refused to pass any stay order in favour of Mohd Iqbal
Abida and Smt
Hazra Khatoon also filed a Writ Petition No 24353 of 1991 on 1291991 challenging the cancellation of their nominations and nominating Smt
Shyama Devi and Smt
Baijanti Devi in their place
A Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No 1067 of 1991 Prem Kumar Balmiki vs State of UP by order dated 13111991 held that the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act was constitutional and valid and any notification issued by the State 41 Government under the said provision was also valid
Another Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court sitting at Allahabad in Writ Petition No 11114 of 1990 Dr Smt
Rama Mishra vs State of UP by order dated 9121991 held that the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act was arbitrary unreasonable unconstitutional and invalid and any notification issued thereunder cancelling the nomination of any woman member of the Board and nominating a new member was invalid
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court considered all the three Writ Petitions two filed by Mohd Iqbal and one by Smt
Abida and Smt
Hazra Khatoon and by a common order dated 1491991 recorded its agreement with the decision in Rama Mishra s case and quashed the notification dated 281991 whereby Smt
Abida and Smt
Hazra Khatoon were ousted and in their place Smt
Shyama Devi and Smt
Baijanti Devi were nominated and also declared Mohd Iqbal to be the President of the Board
In this judgment the High Court though followed Rama Mishra s case but failed to take notice of the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court dated 13111991 given in Prem Kumar Balmiki s case
A review application filed by Om Narain and others was also dismissed by the High Court by order dated 2191992
Aggrieved against the aforesaid decision of the High Court Om Narain Agarwal former Vice President Smt
Shyama Devi and Smt
Bailjanti Devi have come in appeal by Special Leave Petition Nos
13621 23 of 1992
Bashiran who was a nominated woman member in the Municipality of Varanasi and whose nomination was subsequently cancelled has filed Special Leave Petition No 13004 of 1992 against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 9121991 passed in Dr Rama Mishra s case
The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned order dated 1491992 has agreed with the view taken in Dr Rama Mishra s case
After taking the aforesaid view the High Court held that the State Government had no power to cancel the nominations of Smt
Abida and Smt
Hazra Khatoon and to nominate Smt
Shyama Devi and Smt
Baijanti Devi in their place
The High Court as a result of the above finding held that the notification dated 281991 was a nullity and that being so the earlier notification dated 1941990 nominating Smt
Abida and Smt
Hazra Khatoon remained operative
The High Court then considered the next question as to what was the effect of the notification dated 281991 and the motion of no confidence passed on 1281991
The High Court in this 42 regard took the view that the total strength of the members was 37 and the motion of no confidence was carried out by 20 members including the two nominated members Smt
Shyama Devi and Smt
Baijanti Devi
As nomination of these two women members was declared to be invalid their par ticipation and voting right shall have to be ignored and in that view of the matter proceedings dated 1281991 shall be considered as having been attended only by 18 eligible members and the motion cannot be deemed to have been carried by a majority of the members consisting of at least 19 members
The High Court thus held that the provision of Section 87 A 12 of the Act being mandatory and the resolution of no confidence having not been passed by a requisite majority the entire proceedings held on 1281991 relating to the motion of no confidence was non est and as such the resolution of no confidence passed therein was void
The High Court also repelled the contention that till the nomination of Smt
Shyama Devi and Smt
Baijanti Devi was declared void all acts done by them will be protected by de facto doctrine
The High Court also repelled the contention that the nomination of Smt
Abida and Smt
Hazra Khatoon vide notification dated 1941990 should also be declared invalid on the analogy on which the notification dated 281991 nominating Smt
Shyama Devi and Smt
Baijanti Devi has been declared invalid
The High Court in this regard held that the notification dated 1941990 shall remain operative unless the same is challenged and declared to be void
It was also held by the High Court that in view of the interim order passed on 981991 in Writ Petition No 20731 of 1991 to the effect that the result of no confidence motion shall be subject to the decision of the Writ Petition Section 47 A1b of the Act cannot be invoked against the writ petitioner
The High Court after recording the above findings passed the following operative order In the result the Writ Petition No 20731 of 1991 is partly allowed and the notification dated 281991 Annexure No 3 to the Petition is quashed
The Writ Petition No 23861 of 1991 succeeds and is allowed and the entire proceedings taken up in the meeting dated 1281991 including the resolution of no confidence passed against the petitioner are quashed
Annexures No 1 and 1 A to this petition are quashed
The respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner s working as President of the Municipal Board Shahjahanpur
The Writ Petition No 24353 of 1991 succeeds and is allowed
Notification dated 281991 An 43 nexure No 1 to this petition having been quashed the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as members of the Municipal Board Shahjahanpur and permit them to act as such
No order as to costs
 Before considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants it would be necessary to state the relevant provisions of the Act namely Sections 9 47 A and 87 A of the Act
Section 9 of the Act including the amendment added from 1521990 is reproduced as under Section 9
Normal composition of the board
Except as otherwise provided by Section 10 a Board shall consist of a The President b The elected members who shall not be less than 10 and not more than 40 as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify c The ex officio members comprising all members of the House of People and the State Legislative Assembly whose constituencies include the whole or part of the limits of the Municipality d Ex officio members comprising all members of the Council of States and the State Legislative Council who have their residence within the limits of the Municipality
Explanation
For the purposes of this clause the place of residence of a member of the Council of States or the State Legislative Council shall be deemed to be the place of his residence mentioned in the notification of his election or nomination as the case may be  Provided that if none of the members elected under clause b is a woman the State Government may by a like notification nominate one woman as a member of the Board and thereupon the normal composition of the 44 Board shall stand varied to that extent Provided that if none or only one of the members elected under clause b is a woman the State Government may by notification nominate two women members or one more woman member as the case may be so that the number of women members in the Board is not less than two and thereupon the normal composition of the Board shall stand varied to that extent Provided further that if any member of the State Legislative Council representing the Local Authorities Constituency does not have his residence within the limits of any Municipality he will be deemed to be ex officio member of the board of such one of the municipalities situated within his constituency as he may choose  Provided also that if none of the members elected under clause b belongs to safai mazdoor class the State Government may by notification nominate a person belonging to the said class a member of the Board and thereupon the normal composition of the Board shall stand varied to that extent
Explanation  A person shall be deemed to belong to the Safai Mazdoor class if he belongs to such a class of scavengers by occupation or to such of the Scheduled Castes traditionally fol lowing such occupation as may be notified by the State Government  Provided also that a member nominated under this section whether before or after February 15 1990 shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government but not beyond the term of the Board 47 A Resignation of President of vote of non confidence 1 If a motion of non confidence in the President has 45 been passed by the board and communicated to the President in accordance with the provisions of Section 87 A the President shall a With three days or the receipt of such communication either resign his office or represent to the State Government to supersede the board stating his reasons therefore and b unless he resigns under clause a cease to hold office of President on the expiry of three days after the date of receipt of such communication and thereupon a casual vacancy shall be deemed to have occurred in the office of the President within the meaning of Section 44 A Provided thatif a representation has been made in accordance with clause a the board shall not elect a President until an order has been made by the State Government under sub section 3
2  3 If a representation has been made in accordance with sub section 1 the State Government may after considering the same either supersede the board for such period not exceeding the remainder of the term of the board as may be specified or reject the representation 4 5 6 If the State Government supersedes the board under sub section 3 the consequences mentioned in Section 31 shall follow as if there had been a supersession under Section 30  87 A Motion of non confidence against President
1 Subject to the Provisions of this section a motion expressing non confidence in the President shall be made 46 only in accordance with the procedure laid down below
2 Written notice of intention to make a motion of no confidence in its President signed by such number of members of the Board as constitute no less than one half of the total number of members of the Board together with a copy of the motion which it is proposed to make shall be delivered in person together by any two of the members signing the notice to the District Magistrate 3 The District Magistrate shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion to be held at the office of the board on the date and at the time appointed by him which shall not be earlier than thirty and not later than thirty five days from the date on which the notice under sub section 2 was delivered to him
He shall send by registered post not less than seven clear days before the date of the meeting a notice of such meeting and of the date and time appointed therefor to every member of the board at his place of residence and shall at the same time cause such notice to be published in such manner as he may deem fit
Thereupon every member shall be deemed to have received the notice
4 The District Magistrate shall arrange with the District Judge for a stipendiary civil judicial officer to preside at the meeting convened under this section and no other person shall preside thereat
If within half an hour from the time appointed for the meeting the judicial officer is not present to preside at the meeting the meeting shall stand adjourned to the date and the time to be appointed and notified to the members by that officer under sub section 5
5 If the judicial officer is unable to preside at the meeting he may after recording his reasons adjourn the meeting to such other date and time as he may appoint but not later than fifteen days from the date appointed for the meeting under sub section 3
He shall without delay communicate in writing to the District Magistrate the 47 adjournment of the meeting
It shall not be necessary to send notice of the date and the time of the adjourned meeting to the members individually but the District Magistrate shall give notice of the date and the time of the adjourned meeting by publication in the manner provided in sub section 3
6 Save as provided in sub sections 4 and 5 a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this section shall not for any reason be adjourned
7 As soon as the meeting convened under this section has commenced the judicial officer shall read to the board the motion for the consideration of which it has been convened and declare it to be open for discussion
8 No discussion on any motion under this section shall be adjourned
9 Such discussion shall automatically terminate on the expiry of three hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting unless it is concluded earlier
Upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period of three hours as the case may be the motion shall be put to the vote of the board
10 The judicial officer shall not speak on the merits of the motion nor shall he be entitled to vote thereon
11 A copy of the minutes of the meeting together with a copy of the motion and the result of the voting thereon shall on the termination of the meeting be forwarded forthwith by the judicial officer to the President and the District Magistrate Provided that if the President refuses or avoids to take delivery of the copies so forwarded the same shall be affixed at the outer door of his last Known residence and he shall be deemed to have received the same at the time such affixation is made 48 11 A As soon as may be after three days of the receipt of the copies mentioned in sub section 11 the District Magistrate shall forward the same to the State Government together in the event of the motion of non confidence having been carried with a report whether or not the President has forwarded his resignation in accordance with the provisions of Sections 47 and 47 A 12 The motion shall be deemed to have been carried only when it has been passed by a majority of more than one half of the total number of members of the Board 13 If the motion is not carried by a majority as aforesaid or if the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum which shall not be less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Board for the time being No notice of any subsequent motion of no confidence in tic same President shall be received until after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the meeting 14 No Notice of a motion of no confidence under this section shall be received within two years of the assumption of office by a President 15 Nothing done by any member of the board the District Magistrate the judicial officer or the State Government in pursuance of the provisions of this section shall be questioned in any Court It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the view taken in Dr Rama Mishra s case was not correct and the view taken by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Prem Kumar Balmiki s case was correct
It was submitted that the State Legislature was fully competent to insert fourth proviso and to lay down that the nominated members shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government
It was submitted that the pleasure doctrine also finds place in several other enactments including the Constitution of India
It was submitted that under Article 75 2 of the Constitution Ministers of the Central Government hold office during the pleasure of the President
Similarly under Article 164 1 the Ministers in the States of the Indian Union hold office during the pleasure 49 of the Governor
Similarly under Article 76 1 the President appoints Attorney General for India and in view of clause 4 of the said Article this office is held during the pleasure of the President
It was also submitted that Governors for the States are appointed by the President under Article 155 and under Article 156 1
the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President
It was also contended that the Office of member of Municipal Board is a political office
It was further argued that if the initial appointment by nomination is made on political considerations there appears no reason why political consideration should not be allowed to operate in terminating such appointments made by nomination
In these circumstances if the Legislature has itself added the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act authorising the State Government to allow the nominated member to hold the Office during the pleasure of the State Government there is no violation of any principle of natural justice nor such provision is arbitrary so as to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
It was contended that the only requirement under the second proviso to Section 9 of the Act was that if none or only one of the members elected under clause b is a woman the State Government may by notification nominate two women members or one more woman member as the case may be so that the number of women members in the Board is not less than two
It was submitted that the State Government has not violated the aforesaid provision inasmuch as Smt
Shyama Devi and Smt
Baijanti Devi were nominated in place of Smt
Abida and Smt
hazra Khatoon and the number of two women members in the Board was kept intact
Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that once the power of nominating the women members is exercised by the State Government such nominated members cannot be removed prior to the completion of the term of the Board unless they are removed on the grounds contained under Section 40 of the Act
It was also contended that the State Government cannot be allowed to remove a nominated member at its pleasure without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity to show cause
Once a woman member is nominated she gets a vested right to hold the office of a member of the Board and the State Government cannot be given an uncanalised uncontrolled and arbitrary power to remove such member
It is contended that such arbitrary and naked power without any guidelines would be contrary to the well established principles of democracy and public policy
It would hamper the local bodies to act 50 independently without any hindrance from the side of the Government
Section 10 A of the Act prescribes the term of the Board which is five years
Section 38 prescribes the term of office of members elected or nominated to fill casual vacancies and reads as under The term of office of a member elected to fill a casual vacancy or a vacancy remaining unfilled at the general election shall begin upon the declaration of his election under the Act and shall be the remainder of the term of the Board
 Section 39 deals with resignation by a member of the Board
Section 40 provides the grounds for removal of a member of the Board
Sub section 5 of Section 40 deals with suspension of a member
From a perusal of the above provisions it is clear that the term of an elected or nominated member is con terminous with the term of the Board
The normal term of the Board is five years but it may be curtailed as well as extended
If the term of the Board is curtailed by dissolution or supersession the term of the member also gets curtailed
Similarly if the term of the Board is extended the term of the member is also extended
Apart from the curtailment of the term of a member of the Board by dissolution of supersession of the Board itself the term of a member also gets curtailed by his resignation or by his removal from office
Section 40 specifically provides the grounds under which the State Government in the case of a city or the prescribed authority in any other case may remove a member of the Board
The removal under Saction 40 applies to elected as well as nominated members
In respect of a nominated member power of curtailment of term has now been given to the State Government under the fourth proviso to Section 9 added after the third proviso through the amending Act of 1990
In the cases before us we are concerned with the removal of nominated members under the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act and we are not concerned with the removal as contained in Section 40 of the Act
The right to seek an election or to be elected or nominated to a statutory body depends and arises under a statute The initial nomination of the two women members itself depended on the pleasure and subjective satisfaction of the State Government
If such appointments made initially by nomination are based on political considerations there can be no violation of any provision of the Constitution in case the Legislature 51 authorised the State Government to terminate such appointment at its pleasure and to nominate new members in their place
The nominated members do not have the will or authority of any residents of the Municipal Board behind them as may be present in the case of an elected member
In case of an elected member the legislature has provided the grounds in Section 40 of the Act under which the members could be removed
But so far as the nominated members are concerned the Legislature in its wisdom has provided that they shall hold office during the pleasure of the Govern ment
It has not been argued from the side of the respondents that the Legislature had no such power to legislate the fourth proviso
The attack is based on Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution
In our view such provision neither offends any Article of the Constitution nor the same is against any public policy or democratic norms enshrined in the Constitution
There is also no question of any violation of principles of natural justice in not affording any opportunity to the nominated members before their removal nor the removal under the pleasure doctrine contained in the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act puts any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated members
It is done purely on political considerations
In Dr Rama Mishra s case the High Court wrongly held that the pleasure doctrine incorporated under the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act was violative of the fundamental right of equality as enshrined in Article 14 and Article 15 3 of the Constitution
We are unable to agree with the aforesaid reasoning of the High Court
Clause 3 of Article 15 is itself an exception to Article 14 and clauses 1 and 2 of Article 15 of the Constitution
Under Article 14 a duty is enjoined on the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India
Article 15 1 provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion race caste sex place of birth or any of them
Article 15 2 provides that no citizen shall on grounds only of religion race caste sex place of birth or any of them be subject to any disability liability restriction or condition with regard to a access to shops public restaurants hotels and places of public entertainments or b the use of wells tanks bathing ghats roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the 52 use of the general public
Thereafter Article 15 3 provides that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children
This means that in case any special provision is made for women the same would not be violative on the ground of sex which is prohibited under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 15 of the Constitution
Thus the special provision contained for nominating one or two women members as the case may be provided in Section 9 of the Act would be protected from challenge under clause 3 of Article 15 of the Constitution
It may also be worthwhile to note that the provision of pleasure doctrine incorporated by adding proviso four does not in any manner take away the right of representation of women members in the Board but it only permits the State Government to keep the nominated women members of its own choice
The High Court in Dr Rama Mishra s case took a wrong view in holding that the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act was violative of Article 15 3 of the Constitution under an erroneous impression that this provision in any manner curtailed the representation of women members in the Board
We are not impressed with the reasoning given by the High Court that the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act in any manner deprived the fundamental right of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution
It is well established that the right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution applies to equals and not to enequals
The nominated members of the Board fall in a different class and cannot claim equality with the elected members
We are also not impressed with the argument that there would be a constant fear of removal at the will of the State Government and is bound to demoralise the nominated members in the discharge of their duties as a member in the Board
We do not find any justification for drawing such an inference inasmuch as such contingency usually arises only with the change of ruling party in the Government
Even in the case of highest functionaries in the Government like the Governors the Ministers the Attorney General and the Advocate General discharge their duties efficiently though removable at the pleasure of the competent authority under the law and it cannot be said that they are bound to demoralise or remain under a constant fear of removal and as such do not discharge their functions in a proper manner during the period they remain in the office
Thus in the circumstances mentioned above we are clearly of the 53 view that the decision in Dr Rama Mishra s case does not lay down
the correct law and is overruled and the view taken by the High Court in Prem Kumar Balmiki s case supra is held to be correct
We do not consider it necessary to dwell upon other arguments made before us or made and dealt with by the High Court as the above appeals can be disposed of on the point already dealt and decided by us
Thus as a result of the view taken by us we hold that Smt
Shyama Devi and Smt
Baijanti Devi the two women
members had been rightly nominated in place of Smt
Abida and Smt
Hazra Khatoon and were entitled to take part in the meeting held on 1281991 for considering the motion of no confidence against Mohd Iqbal the President of Nagar Palika Shahjahanpur
Further the motion of no confidence being supported by 20 members which admittedly constituted a majority of the total strength of the members of the Board being 37 the no confidence motion has been rightly carried out and as a result of which Mohd Iqbal was not entitled to continue as President of the Board
Similarly Smt
Abida and Smt
Hazra Khatoon having been rightly removed as nominated members they are no longer entitled to continue as nominated members of the Municipal Board Shahjahanpur and in their place Smt
Shyama Devi and Smt
Baijanti Devi shall be entitled to continue as nominated members of the Board
In the result all the above appeals are allowed the judgment of the High Court dated 1491992 in Writ Petition Nos
20731 of 1991 23861 of 1991 and 24353 of 1991 and dated 9121991 in Writ Petition No 11114 of 1990 are set aside and all the aforesaid Writ Petitions stand dismissed
No order as to costs
VPR Appeals allowed


Summary:
The appellant who was an Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department was transferred on deputation to the Bangalore City Corporation under the City Bangalore Cadre and Recruitment Regulation 1971 which permitted 75 of vacancies in the cadre to be filed in by deputation from PWD
In 1977 the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules were framed and the appellant was absorbed in the Corporation
On being challenged in a Writ Petition the High Court struck down the Rules and set aside the absorption of the appellant in the Corporation
The Government issued an ordinance removing the infirmity in the Rules
It was replaced by the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Amendment Act 1981
In course of time the appellant was promoted as Executive Engineer Superintending Engineer and Addl
Chief Engineer
Ile earlier Writ Petitioners approached the High Court by way of a Contempt Petition against the non implementation of its order
Faced with this situation the Government repatriated the appellant to his parent departmentjust a few months before his retirement
The appellant approached the Administrative Tribunal which dismissed his application as infructuous in view of the fact that the matter was pending before the High Court and in any case the appellant would get his pension either from the State Government or the Corporation
Hence these appeals
55 Allowing the appeals this Court HELD Under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Amendment Act 1981 the basis on which the Karnataka Municipal Rules 1977 were declared void was removed and appointments made or continued before the commencement of the Amendment Act were declared to be valid and were always be deemed to have been validly made for all purposes as if the said appointments had been made under the Principal Act as amended by the Act
It is not in dispute that the State Legislature is competent to make the Act
When the Act was made and it validated past acts done or proceedings taken it was valid Act and removed the defects declared by the Court
It must be deemed and shall always be deemed that the appointment of the appellant as Addl
Chief Engineer is legal and valid
Unfortunately the Act was not brought to the notice of the High Court when the direction to repatriate the appellant was made by the High Court
But the failure to bring to the notice of the court does not have the effect of nullifying the valid action legislatively taken
Consequently the appellant must be deemed to have been retired from service as Addl
Chief Engineer of the Corporation
The appellant is entitled to all the consequential benefits all pensionary benefits etc
from the Corporation
58H 59 A D Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd  Anr
vs Broach Borough Municipality  Ors
  Janapada Sabha Chhindwara etc
vs Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd  Anr etc
  and Yadlapati Venkateswarlu vs State of Anadhra Pradesh  Anr 19901 Suppl
1 SCR 381 relied on