LexHARI NANDAN SHARAN BHATNAGAR versus S. N. DIXIT & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H HARi NANDAN SHARAN BHATNAGAR v. S. N. DIXIT & ANR. April 25, 1969 (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 pay- Post of Superintendent a selection post. AC'COrding to r. 7 of the United Provinces Legislative Department 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 ap~ellant entered the service of the U.P. Legislative Assembly in 1954 throuib a Clllllpetitive examination held by tht Public Service Com- 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 quailfi~d superior service assistant the appellant filed a suit in the court of the Munsif. The Munsif decreed the suit in his fav0ur 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, 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 consi- dered 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 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 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 '22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] I s.c.R. which could be taken into consideration by this Court because the appoint- A ment was made after thorough scrutiny of representations received and after consideration of the recommendation made by the Secretary of the Legislative Department. [424E) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1020 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated B October 28, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Second Appeal No. 356 of 1964. 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 Pro- vinces Legi~lative Department Rules in the appointment of the first respondent, S. N. Dixit, as the Superintendent in the Legis- lative 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 examina
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.