council is competent to make appointment. The conditions of Service of Class – III & Class – IV employees are governed by the bye-laws made by the Council of Corporation. In respect of the other two classes, they are governed by the rules made by the State Government under Section 86(1)(2) of the Act and it is only the Council that has the power to make the bye-laws and by virtue of the above power conferred on the Council, the present bye-laws was made by the Council for governing their service conditions. The appellants after initial appointment on compassionate grounds, were also appointed as Tax Collectors based on the above bye-laws and promotions were also given to them only based on the same bye-laws. Therefore, after accepting the appointment and also the promotion and after working in the Corporation for nearly 20 years, now, the appellants cannot say that the bye-laws have not been followed and they are not bound by it. Apart from that, under Section 24 of the Act, the first respondent is bound to give effect to every resolution of the Council, unless such a resolution is cancelled in whole or in part by the State Government. It is only the Council which has the powers to frame the bye-laws for the conditions Classes III & IV employees and based on the byelaws passed by the Council, only promotions were given to the appellants with the above condition. Hence, the appointing authority in so far as the appellants are concerned is the Appointment Committee headed by the Mayor and two Councilors elected by the Council. On the other hand, the appellants accepted the condition stipulated by the respondent Corporation and joined duty as License Inspectors.
