JUDGMENT DHARMADHIKARIJ.-The petitioners in this writ petition, who were duly qualified to be appointed as teachers, had applied to the Municipal Council, Darwha, for appointment as teachers in the Marathi Primary Schools in the year 1971. It is an admitted position that the Municipal Council, Darwha; runs Marathi Primary Schools and as the petitioners came to know that there were vacancies for the pests of primary teachers in the schools run by the Municipal Council, Darwha, they filed applications for such appointments The application for appointment of petitioner No.3 Anil Baliramji Vinchurkar was forwarded by the Employment Exchange to the Municipal Council Darwha and other petitioners had applied directly to the Municipal Council. It seems, apart from the, petitioners, the respondents No.3 to 7 had also applied for such appointments. 2. After receiving these applications the Municipal Council, as a whole, held an interview on 26th July 1971 and it is alleged by the petitioners that about 13 persons, who were members of the Municipal Council; and the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council were present at the time of this interview. During the course of interview, the petitioners, were asked to go back on the ground that trained teachers were Dot required by the Municipal Council. This allegation made by the petitioners is not disputed by ·the Municipal Council in its return, Therefore, it is apparent that the cases of the petitioners were net considered by the Municipal Council for the appointments as teachers, though they were trained and qualified. The Municipal Council however; pointed untrained teachers, who are the respondents Nos. 3 to 7. It is not disputed that the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were not trained. Thereafter a resolution was passed on 30th July 1971 by the Standing Committee Of the Council appointing the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 as teachers in the Marathi Primary Schools run by the Municipal Council, Darwha. These appointments are challenged in this writ petition by the petitioners, 3. It is contended by Mr. Chandurkar on behalf of the petitioners that the whole procedure followed by the Municipal Council while appointing the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 as teachers was illegal and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is contended by Mr. It is contended by Mr. Chandurkar on behalf of the petitioners that the whole procedure followed by the Municipal Council while appointing the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 as teachers was illegal and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is contended by Mr. Challdurkar that the petitioners have been denied the equal opportunity in the matter of public employment, as the consideration of their cases was shut out on the ground that they were trained teachers. It IS further contended that the Municipal Council has not followed the Rules framed under section 25(g) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, known as Recruitment Rules. Rule 9 of these Rules provides that when an appointment is to be made to any post, by the Municipal Committee, it shall invite applications by a notice to be published at the Committees office and in one or more leading newspapers. Rule 10 of these Rules provides for constitution of a Selection Committee, who is required to make recommendation in this behalf Rule 6 of the Rules provides for educational and other qualifications of a candidate for the posts and rule 7 (c) lays down that a Train Teachers Certificate, Primary Grade, is a necessary qualification for a person to be appointed as a teacher in the primary School provided that the, Municipal Council may, with the previous permission of the District Inspector of Schools, accept a lesser qualification in any individual case. Rule 5 of these Recruitment Rules provides that a Candidate has to furnish satisfactory evidence relating to the matters enumerated therein. According to Mr. Chandurkar, in view of the provisions of section 346 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, these Rules are still in force and the Municipal Council has failed to follow them, In this view of the matter, it is contended that the appointments of the respondents 3 to 7 are also contrary to Rules. 4. On behalf of the Municipal Council Shri Kherdekar contended that the appointments of the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were made on temporary basis and as the period of their appointment has expired this writ petition has become in fructuous. It is further contended by Mr. Kherdekar that the petitioners had an alternate remedy of approaching the Collector under section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. 3 to 7 were made on temporary basis and as the period of their appointment has expired this writ petition has become in fructuous. It is further contended by Mr. Kherdekar that the petitioners had an alternate remedy of approaching the Collector under section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. It is further contended by Mr. Kherdekar that these were temporary appointments and the Municipal Council was not seeking any grant from the Government for the expenditure in this behalf, and therefore, the Municipal Council has got a right to appoint any person it chooses. 5. When the matter came before us for hearing on a previous occasion, we had sought certain information from Mr. Kherdekar in view of the further affidavit filed by the petitioners alleging that some of the respondents have been again re-appointed by the Municipal Council. We are informed by Mr. Kherdekar to-day that the Municipal Council had made further appointments though on a temporary basis, and the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 have been deputed for training by the Municipal Council in view of their last years experience. In the statement filed before us today the chief Officer has also stated that he had brought to the notice of the members of the Standing Committee that a writ petition is pending, and therefore, the Committee should take into consideration all the aspect including the rules of the matter before making appointments. In view of this statement Shri Kherdekar sought permission from us to withdraw his power on behalf of the Chairman of the standing Committee, Municipal Council, Darwha, who is personally present in the Court today. Though we have not granted permission to Mr. Kherdekar to withdraw his power on behalf of the Chairman, standing Committee, Municipal Council, Darwha, we thought it expedient to hear the Chairman in person, because he wanted to argue the matter personally. 6. Shri Kazi, who is at present the President of the Municipal Council and the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council, contended that last years appointments were made in clear vacancies and though untrained teachers were appointed inspite of the fact that trained teachers were available and though no advertisement was issued on behalf of the Municipal Council last year inviting application. the respondents, Nos. the respondents, Nos. 3 to 7 were appointed as teachers, by the Municipal Council in the interest of general public as well as Council. The Municipal Council took into consideration the culture, character and experience of the various candidates and thereafter have issued appointment orders this year. It was not possible for Mr. Kazi 10 make any statement regarding the appointments made in the year 1971, because, according to him, he was not then the President of the Municipal Council nor he was the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council far that year. 7. It was further argued by Shri Kazi, that if trained teachers are appointed, they are required to be paid higher wages. Therefore, the Municipal Council had appointed untrained teachers, to save the public money. The Municipal Council normally appoints untrained teachers in these vacancies and sends them latter on for training. According to this scheme, this year respondents Nos. 4 to 7 have been deputed for training in view of their last years appointment and experience. We are unable to appreciate these contentions raised by Shri Kazi. 8. From the submissions made by the Chairman of the Standing Committee, it is quite clear that the respondents have been benefited by their previous appointments and because of these appointments alone, one of them is reappointed this year also and 4 of them have been deputed for training. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the argument of Shri Kherdekar that this writ petition has become in fructuous. Shri Kherdekar had also argued that the respondents have got an alternate remedy under section 308 of the Municipalities Act. The power conferred upon the Collector by the said section is a discretionary one and it cannot be said that the petitioners have got an alternate efficacious remedy open to challenge the appointments of the respondents under that section. 9. It is clear from the record that the cases of the petitioners were not considered at all by the Municipal Council while making these appointments. On the contrary, now it is an admitted position that the petitioners were asked to go back when they appeared for the interview, on the ground that the trained teachers were not required by the Municipal Council. On the contrary, now it is an admitted position that the petitioners were asked to go back when they appeared for the interview, on the ground that the trained teachers were not required by the Municipal Council. Therefore, though the petitioners were called for interview, an arbitrary ban was imposed against the employment of these petitioners on the sole ground that they are the trained teachers and their names were excluded from consideration. As we have already indicated, the petitioners, being the trained teachers, were better qualified than the respondents. This imposition of an arbitrary ban against the employment of these petitioners as teachers, amounts to denial of right of equal opportunity of employment guaranteed under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. The fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is not only a right to make an application for a post but a further right of being considered on merits for the post for which an application has been made. The ban regarding which a grievance has been made by the petitioners was apparently against their being considered on merits. It was a ban which deprived the petitioners of their fundamental right under Article 16 of the Constitution. We are satisfied that, in this case, the petitioners were not treated fairly and the appointments made by the Municipal Council of respondent Nos. 3 to 7, without considering the names of the petitioners, were therefore, void ab initio being violative of the petitioners fundamental right under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is not necessary for us to decide in this case as to whether the Rules framed under the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, are still in force or not, because no such specific allegations were made in this behalf by the petitioners in the petition, and therefore, it could not be said that the Municipal Council had an opportunity to meet them squarely. It is also not necessary for us to decide in this writ petition as to whether the directions issued by the Government in this behalf and incorporated in the various Government resolutions directing the Municipal Council to appoint trained persons as teachers in the Primary Schools will be binding on the Municipal Council or not. 11. It is also not necessary for us to decide in this writ petition as to whether the directions issued by the Government in this behalf and incorporated in the various Government resolutions directing the Municipal Council to appoint trained persons as teachers in the Primary Schools will be binding on the Municipal Council or not. 11. It was also alleged in the petition by the petitioners that the appointments have been made by the Municipal Council to these public posts treating it to be a private affair of its members and that one of the candidates, namely, Shiomangal Kunjbihari Dube, respondent No.3, was appointed as teacher because he was the real brother of Shri Jagatnarayan Dube, the Chairman of the Education Committee. Shri Jagatnarayan Dube had participated in the meeting, and therefore, was a party to the appointment of respondent No.3 Shiomangal Dube. This allegation is also not denied by the Municipal Council in its return. Therefore, it seems to us that the Municipal Council has treated the whole affair as a private affair of its members and has acted clearly in contravention of the provisions of the Rules as well as the Government directions and the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. It cannot be disputed that the Municipal Council is a State as contemplated by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Every citizen of India, who is duly qualified, has got a right to be considered for an appointment to any office under the Municipal Council. Therefore, while making such appointments to the public posts, it is not only expedient but necessary that the persons duly qualified should be called upon to submit their applications and for this purpose, in our view issuing of an advertisement or public notice is the minimum requirement. 13. Article 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees to a citizen equal opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Krishna Chandar Nayar v. Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation and others1, this fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16, includes a right to make an application for the post coupled with a further right of being considered on merits for the post for which application had been made. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Krishna Chandar Nayar v. Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation and others1, this fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16, includes a right to make an application for the post coupled with a further right of being considered on merits for the post for which application had been made. So that, all the willing eligible candidates will be in a position to apply for the post, it is necessary that the intention of the Municipal Council to make appointments to the public posts should be made known to the public. These appointments cannot be treated to be private affair of the Municipal Council and these offices cannot be allowed to be filled in without making them known to the public and thereby depriving all the eligible persons from applying and being considered for the post itself. This requirement is the very essence of giving an equal opportunity in the matter of public employment, as contemplated by Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It may be noted at this stage that Rule 9 of the Rules framed under section 25 of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, has made such a provision which enjoins upon the Municipal Council to invite application by a notice to be published and posted at the Councils office and in one or more leading newspapers. Apparently, this procedure has not been followed by the Municipal Council while making these appointments. No doubt, the petitioners had filed their applications and therefore, it cannot be said that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, any prejudice was caused to them because of this non-publication of the advertisement but in our opinion the Municipal Council Darwha, was expected to follow this mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India before making appointments to any office under the Municipal Council. 14. In the view we have taken the writ petition is allowed. The appointments of the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 made by toe Municipal Council, Darwha, vide resolution No. 1 dated 30-7-1971 of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council, are quashed and set aside and the Municipal Council, Darwha, is directed to advertise the posts afresh and thereafter make appointments in accordance with law. 15. The appointments of the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 made by toe Municipal Council, Darwha, vide resolution No. 1 dated 30-7-1971 of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council, are quashed and set aside and the Municipal Council, Darwha, is directed to advertise the posts afresh and thereafter make appointments in accordance with law. 15. In view of the attitude taken by the Chairman of the Standing Committee before us, we hereby direct that the Chairman of the Standing Committee, respondent No.2, will, personally pay the costs of the petitioners in this writ petition. Petition allowed.