Direct recruitment to municipal post upheld where no exclusive promotion rule existed, and ex parte cancellation failed for breach of natural justice.

Where a municipal recruitment order did not expressly require exclusive promotion for the post of Tax Inspector, direct recruitment remained permissible alongside promotion, and the appellant's appointment was valid. An appointment once made created a vested right to hold the post, so cancellation without notice or hearing violated the audi alteram partem rule and was void. The Commissioner's cancellation and the High Court's interference were therefore unsustainable because the governing rule did not bar direct recruitment and the appointment could not be annulled ex parte.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government Order dated 10 April 1950 validly required the post of Tax Inspector in a municipal board to be filled only by promotion and not by direct recruitment; (ii) Whether the order cancelling the appellant's appointment was void for having been made without notice or hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the Government Order dated 10 April 1950 validly required the post of Tax Inspector in a municipal board to be filled only by promotion and not by direct recruitment.

Analysis: Section 71 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, before its amendment in 1964, did not authorise the State Government to issue directions regulating municipal employees' conditions of service in the manner assumed by the authorities below. The order of 10 April 1950, read as a whole, prescribed minimum qualifications and recruitment procedures for posts in local bodies, but it did not contain any direction that the post of Tax Inspector had to be filled exclusively by promotion. The relevant clauses contemplated promotion as a rule in appropriate cases and also contemplated direct recruitment to posts specified in the schedule. In the absence of an express prohibition against direct recruitment for Tax Inspector, the municipal board was competent to fill the post by direct recruitment or by promotion.

Conclusion: The Government Order did not compel exclusive promotion, and the appellant's appointment by direct recruitment was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the order cancelling the appellant's appointment was void for having been made without notice or hearing.

Analysis: The appellant had already been appointed and thereby acquired a vested right to hold the post, which could not be taken away without affording an opportunity of hearing. An order passed in breach of the audi alteram partem rule is invalid. Since the Commissioner set aside the appointment without notice to the appellant, the cancellation order suffered from a fundamental procedural defect.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was void for breach of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The appointment of the appellant could not be annulled either on the footing that promotion was compulsory or on the ground of the ex parte cancellation, and the interference by the Commissioner and the High Court was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing rule does not expressly require exclusive promotion, direct recruitment remains permissible; and an appointment that confers a vested right cannot be cancelled without notice and hearing.

---