Appeal against appointment of a Treasurer as Legislative Assembly Superintendent over a senior Upper Division Assistant. The Supreme Court held 'grade' means same scale of pay; the post was a selection post where the Speaker could consider all same-grade officials, not only Upper Division Assistants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A
HARi NANDAN SHARAN BHATNAGAR
v.
S. N. DIXIT & ANR.
April 25, 1969
B
(J. C. SHAH AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]
U.P. Legislative Assembly Rules, r. 7-A.ppointment to post of Supe• rintendent to be made from 'grade of superior service assistant.I-Grade'. meaning of-Whether includes all persons working on same scale of payPost of Superintendent a selection post.
AC'COrding to r. 7 of the United Provinces Legislative Department c Rules recruitment to the post of Superintendent shall be made by promo- tion from 'the grade of superior service assistants in the Council Depart· lnent'. While regard was to be shown to seniority full authority was reserved to appoint the assistant most fitted for the post ar. J \Vhen no suitable assistant W-8 available recruitment might be made from outside.
The apellant entered the service of the U.P. Legislative Assembly in 1954 throuib a Clllllpetitive examination held by tht Public Service Com- D mission of the Slate. In 1955 he was confirmed in the post of Upper Division Assistant. In September, 1961 a vacancy occurred in the post of a Superintendent in the Legislative Assembly Secretariat. The first '.respondent who was working as a Treasurer in the same ofli_ce in the same scale of pay as the appellant was appointed to the said post by the Speaker of the Assembly. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim as the senior quailfid superior service assistant the appellant filed a suit in the court of the Munsif. The Munsif decreed the suit in his fav0ur E but the District Judge In first appeal and the High Court in second appeal decided against him. According to the view taken by the High Court tho word 'grade' in r. 7 ineant the scale of pay, and therefore all persons on the same scale of pay as a superior service assistant were qualifirct for the pool of Supd'inten~ in whichever department and under whatever designation they might be working. In appeal by special leave before this Court,
F HELD : The post of Superintendent was a selection post and seniority by itself was not a sufficient qualification. The Speaker had taken into consideration the clahns of the senior Upper Division Assistants but under the rules his ch~ was not limited to the Upper Division Assistants. He could consider the claims of others who were in the same grade, that is to say, enjoying the same scale of pay and pick out the person considered by him to be qualified in all respects to perform the duties of a Superintendent The High Coutt had rightly held that all officials of the G U.P. Legislative Assembly Secretariat holding posts in the same scale of pay as Upper Division Assistants were eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent. [423H-424B]
The danger that on the above interpretation persons like book-binders and chauffeurs, if they were getting a salary in the same g'rade as the senior service as·sistants would be eligible for the post, was imaginary, for H in making appointment to a selection post the qualific.ations of a person would certainly have to be c<Jnsidered. [424D]
The fact that the appellant entered service through a competitive exa·· mination while the respondent had failed to pass such a test ':vas not one LllSupCI/69-13
[1970] I s.c.R.
'22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
which could be taken into consideration by this Court because the appoint- ment was made after thorough scrutiny of representations received and after consideration of the recommendation made by the Secretary of the Legislative Department. [424E)
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1020 of 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 28, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Second Appeal No. 356 of 1964.
B
R. K. Garg and D. P. Singh, for the appellant.
S. S. Shukla, for respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, J. The only question in this appeal by special leave is, whether there was a violation of Rule 7 of the United Provinces Legi~lative Department Rules in the appointment of the first respondent, S. N. Dixit, as the Superintendent in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttar Pradesh in prelerence to the appellant.
The facts are as follows. The appellant was appointed as an Upper Division Assistant (formerly known as superior service assistant) in the Legislative Assembly Secretariat Uttar Pradesh in 1954 on the result of a competitive examination held by the Public Service Commission of the State. He was confirmed in the post of Upper Division Assistant with effect from June 16, 1955. In September 1961 a vacancy occurred in the post of a Superintendent in the Legislative Assembly Secretariat. The fii :; respondent was working as a Treasurer in the same office. According to the appellant, one Uma Shanker was the senior Upper Division Assistant and he was immediately after Uma Shanker in order of seniori!)'. In view of the fact that Uma Shanker had not put in the mmimum period of ten years' service as Upper Division Assistant the Speaker of the Assembly did not thin, it fit to appoint him as Superintendent but he ignored the appellant's claim to the post after Uma Shanker and appointed Dixit in violation of the mandatory provision.< of Rule 7. The said Rule reads:
"Recruitment to the post of the Superintnedent shall be made by promotion from the grade of superior service assistants in the Council Department. While due regard will be paid to seniority, no assistant will be appointed to the post of Superintendent unless he is considered qualified in all respects to perform the duties of a Superintendent and full authority will be reserved to appoint the a<sistant most fitted for the post. If,
c
D
E
F
G
"
l
Hill NANDAN v. S, N. DlX!T (Mi~ter, J.)
423
A however, no suitable assistant is avail.able fo~ prom?· tion from amongst the grade of supenor service assJS· tants in the Council Department, recruitment may, as a special case, be made from outside."
424
[1970] I S.C.R.
SUPlll!MB COWT lll!POllTS
':Jpper Divisi<¥t Assistan~ but und.er the rules his choice was not limited to the Upper D1vis1on Assistants. He could consider the ~!aims of others who were in the ~e grade, that is to say, enjoymg the same scales ol pay and pick out the person considered by him to be qualified in all respects to perform the duties of a Superintendent. All officials of the Legislative Assembly Secretariat holding posts in the same scale of pay as Upper Division Assistants vere eligible for promotion 10 the post of the Superintendent
Counsel argued that this would be an unreasonable interpre· tation of the rule for in that case even a book-binder or a chauffeur would have to be considered if their scales of pay were the same as those of Upper Division Assistants. We do not think that l\Dyone would place such an absurd construction on the rule. The appointing authority had to consider not only the eligibility based on the grade (assuming that the rules unreasonably place a chauffeur, a book-binder, an accountant and a special duty clerk in the same grade) but also the qualification of the person appointed to perform the duties of the Superintendent and a book-binder or a chauffeur would certainly not be eligible for consideration. It was said that the educational qualification of the appellant was much superior to that of Dixit and while the appellant had joined service by passinjl a competitive cxaminatlOn held by the Public Service Commission the first r~spondent had failed to pass such a test. These are matters an which we can express no opinion. As noted already, the appointment was made after a thorough scrutiny of representations received and after consideration of the recommendation made by the Secretarv of the Legislative Department.
A
B
c
D
E
In the result the appeal is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs.
·G.C.
Appeal dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether 'grade of superior service assistants' in Rule 7 includes only Upper Division Assistants or all officials in the same scale of pay for promotion to Superintendent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hari Nandan Sharan Bhatnagar
S. N. Dixit
Anr.
J. C. Shah
G. K. Mitter
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
