JUDGMENT - QAZI M.M., J.:---The petitioner is an elected Councillor of the respondent No. 2 Municipal Council, Pauni, and also a member of the Standing committee, Chairman of the Standing Committee. According to the petitioner, as per the bye-laws of the Municipal Council, the power to make appointments vests in the Standing Committee. On 13-9-1985 there was a meeting of the Standing Committee in which two resolutions came to be passed; by the first resolution five teachers were appointed while by the second resolution one teacher was appointed. However, the respondent No. 1 by an order dated 16-9-1985 stayed the resolution of the Standing Committee passed in the meeting dated 13-9-1985, and directed the Chief Officer to convene a meeting and issued a notice on 17-9-1985 calling a meeting of the Councillors on 20-9-185. 2. The resolution dated 13-9-1985 passed by the Standing Committee was placed before the Council for opinion on 20-9-1985. The Council did not approve the resolution dated 13-9-1985 passed by the Standing Committee, appointing the teachers. The petitioner, therefore, filed a revision before the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Nagpur, under section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, challenging the order dated 16-9-1985 passed by respondent No. 1, staying the effect of the resolution of the Standing Committee, and the decision of the respondent No. 2 taken in the meeting of the Council on 20-9-1985. However, the revision was dismissed. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. Madkholkar has invited our attention to various provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act and has submitted that the authority to appoint teachers vests in the Standing Committee and, therefore, the appointment of five teachers by the Standing Committee vide resolution dated 13-9-1985 could not have been nullified by the General Body in its meeting dated 20-9-1985. He has pointed out with reference to section 73(4) that the Standing Committee has to report its decision to the Council for its information. On the basis of this he has argued that the Standing Committee is all in all in the matter of appointment of teachers and the General Body having constituted the Standing Committee is divested of its power to nullity the decision of the Standing Committee. 4. In our view, the contention of Mr. Madkholkar is devoid of substance. Section 73(2) lays down that the Standing Committee is subordinate to the Council. 4. In our view, the contention of Mr. Madkholkar is devoid of substance. Section 73(2) lays down that the Standing Committee is subordinate to the Council. There is no dispute that the Standing Committee is constituted by the General Body for discharging certain functions. That does not necessarily mean that the General Body is wholly diversted of its powers to supervise the working of the Standing Committee. The General Body is after all the supreme body and can always approve or disapprove the decision of the Standing Committee. In the instant case, it has been already found by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration that the Standing Committee made appointments of teachers not on merits but on extraneous considerations and, therefore, its resolution was stayed the next day itself by the President of the Council. It has been observed by him that the candidates who secured highest marks before the Selection Committee were not appointed by the Standing Committee due to the interest of some members in some candidates. All this has been discussed in detail in the impugned order and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same again. Suffice it to say that we have no doubt that in view of section 73(2) of the Standing Committee is subordinate to the General Body and by virtue of this provision it is always possible for the General Body to nullify or modify the decision of the Standing Committee. That is what it has done in the instant case. The petition is wholly without substance and hence dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. -----