The State of Bihar, through Advocate General Lalit Kishore, had justified the amendment by arguing that it was brought in with a view to ensure free and fair appointments to the posts.
Kishore claimed that the posts were being used by employees to continue working in a particular municipal office for a prolonged period, leading to corruption. He underlined that post the amendment, transfers of Group-C employees became possible, which enabled efficient and experienced employees to be available to municipalities.
It was also argued on behalf of the State Article 243W of the Constitution, which empowers State to make laws to govern the powers, authority and responsibilities of Municipalities, was merely an enabling provision and posited no restriction upon the power of the State to legislate and take away the power of appointment as has been done under the present amendment.
The petitioners on the other hand had contended that the offending provisions are in violation of Article 243W since the said Article empowers the State Legislature to make laws to facilitate self-government and not to defeat it.
Source: Barandbench
