G. R. BAQUAL versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 878 · Decided: 04-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

878 
[M. 
G. R. BAQUAL 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR 
March 4, 1970 
H!DAYATULLAH, C.J., 
J. c. SHAH,. 
K. S. HEGDE, 
A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.l 
Civil Servic~fficer, junior to others, 8elected for a post equivalent 
to a higher post-Whether amounts to seniority over others--ScofU of 
such selection. 
The appellanf and respondents 2, 3 and 4 were superintendents in tho 
State Secretariat service, the appellant being junior to the th= respon· 
dents. 
In 1959, the appellant was appointed as Personal Assistant to the 
Chairman of the Legislative Council, and shortly thereafter, the three res-
pondents were pro1noted as Under Secretaries. 
In 1963, 
the appellant 
was transferred to the Secretariat as Under Secretary. 
In 1964, the three 
respondents were promoted as Deputy Secretarie<. 
On the question, whether by appointment as P.A. to the Chairman of 
the Legislative Council the appellant was senior to the respondents, and 
hence, was entitled to be also appointed as Deputy Secretary, 
HELD : Under the Jammu and Kashmir · Legislative Council Secre-
tariat (Regulation and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1959, a P.A. to the 
Chairman df the Legislative Council is equated to a P.A. to a Minister 
who is equated to an Under Secretary. 
But, in the present case, the 
appellant was not promoted to the post of P.A. to the Chairman. He was 
only selected to serve as P.A. and such selection did not confer on him 
any privilege beyond holding that post as long as the Chairman would 
have him. 
Under r. 24 of the Rules also, it is the substantive oost that 
matters and there the appellant was junior to the respondents. (879 E-F, 
G-H; 880 A-BJ 
. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1584 of 
1968. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 21, 
1966 of the J ammu and Kashmir High Court in Writ Petition 
No. 40 of 1965. 
A. S. R. Chari, K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, 
B 
c 
E 
F 
for the appelll\nt. 
G 
N. S. Bindra, R. N. Sachthe,v and B. D. Sharma, for respon-
dent No. 1. 
· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah C.J. 
This appeal arises from the judgment and 
order of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, December 21 1966 
H 
dismissing a petition under Art. 32(2-A) of the Jammu & Kash: 
mir Constitution filed by the petitioner/appellant G. R. Baqual 
G. R. BAQUAL v. :t. &-K. STATE (Hidayatullah, C.J.) 
879 
A 
for certain reliefs on the ground that be J:ias been discriminated 
against and -punished without rect>urse to statutory provis10~s and 
procedure. 
The facts of the case are as .follows : 
B 
c 
D 
The appellant who, is a Graduate of. the Punjab University 
entered the Secretariat service of the Janunu & Kashmir State OI) 
Novembed!,,JJ946 as a clerk. 
Later he was promoted as Superm, 
tendent on September 26, 1957 and was holding a grade of 
Rs. 150-15-300 \revised 200-20-300-25-400). 
He was 
then 
appointed as Persorial Assistant in gazetted rank in the grade of 
Rs. 200-400 (revised 250-25-350-30-500) and became P.A. to 
the Chairman of the Legislative Council by his order dated Octo-
ber 23, 1959. The appellant was then transferred to the Civil 
Secretariat as an Under-Secretary on September 30, 1963 under 
Government orders in the same grade of Rs. 250-500. 
He claim-
ed seniority against other Under-Secretaries when on Apnl 14,. 
1964, the Government promoted four Under-Secreta~ to the -
post of Deputy Secretaries in the pay scale of Rs. 450-800 which 
included three of the respondents in this appeal. 
He was not 
promoted and he ,claimed that he was so entitled both on his 
seniority and under the statutory rules. 
The case of the appellant is almost entirely based upon his 
appointment as Personal Assistant to ·the Chahman of the Legis-
lative Council which is equated with an Under-Secretary under 
E 
the Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Council Secretariat (Regula-
tion and cQllditions of Service) Rules, 1959. Under these rules, 
a.PA. to the Chainnan of the'Le~islative Council is equated to 
a P.A. to a Minister and he is in his tum equated with an Under-
Secretary and enjoys the same scale of pay. 
This scale of pay is 
certainly higher than the scale of pay \which the Superintendent 
geL~. 
F 
G 
It was admitted before us that the appellant was not senior to 
the other Superintendents in the substantive post of Superinten-
dent. 
In other words, if everything had been equal, he would be 
junior to respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and would take his tum for

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.