JAI NARAIN MISRA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 15-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

392 
. ,: 
JAi NARAIN MISRA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR ~ ORS. 
September 15, 1970 
B 
(J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Civil cservice-Selection Post-Director. (If/ Agriculture--Method of 
filling up. 
. 
The Director of Agriculture in the respondent.state having retired tho 
State Government' wrote to the Public Service Commission requesting them 
to select one of the ! 4 officers shown in the list accompanying the letter 
· C 
for being promoted as Director. The letter stated that the question of 
senill'rity among those officers was still under consideration and that the 
list was not arranged in accordance with seniority .. The pay scale of some 
of the officers in the list was Rs. 900 to Rs. 1,400 and others Rs. 1,260 
to Rs. 1,700. 
The selection was to be on the basis of merit and suit-
ability. 
After examining the records, the Commission recommended the 
name of the appellant. The third respondent filed a writ petition and the 
D 
High Court held that the third respondent was senior to the appellant 
and had greater merit. The pay scale of both the appellant and the third 
respondent was Rs. 1,200 to Rs. 1,700. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD·. (l) The post of Director of Agriculture is a selection !'OSI 
and an ex-cadre post. 
Selection to it is made solely on the basis c,i merit 
and the question of seniority was not Televant. It is for the State Govern-
ment to select the most suitable officer and for discharging that responsi-
bili~y. it was open to the Government to seek the assistance of the Public 
Service Commission. The use of the word promoted in the letter was in-
appropriate· but the nature of the post cannot be changed by the Govern-
ment using that word. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in going 
into the question df seniority, especially when there w~s no complaint of 
m~la {ides either on the part of the Government or the Commission. 
[393 H; 394 B-C, E-F] 
(2) Rule 16 of the Rules regulating the Bihar and Orissa Agricultural 
Services Class I promulgated on April· 11, !935 is not superseded by the 
1945 Rules which apply to Bihar Agricultural Service 
Class I, 
Bihar 
Agricultural Service Class II, General Provincial Service and special pools 
outside these cadres. 
The 1935 Rules do not come in the way of the: 
Government· making its selection to the post of Director, and R. 12 of 
1945-Rules is not applicable. [395 F. G; 396 BJ 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 477 of 
1970. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 12, 1970 
of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1067 
of .1969. 
E 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
F 
G 
H 
J. N. MISHRA V. B!HAR (Hegde, !.) 
393' 
S. V. Gupte and U. P. Singh, for the appellant. 
· H R. Gokha/e and R. C. Prasad, for respondent Nos. I 
and 2. 
D. P. Singh. for respondent No. 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. 
The appellant and the third respondent are serving 
in the Agricultural Department of the Bihar Govennment. 
Till 
February 1968 Mr. B. N. Sinha was the Director of the Agricul-
ture in that State. 
He retired in February of that year. 
On 
November 25 1967 the State Govenunent of Bihar wrote to the 
Public Servic~ Com~i~ion requesting the Commission to select 
one of the fourteen officers shown in the list accompanying that 
letter tor being promoted as Director of Agriculturi:i. 
The pay 
scale of some of those officers was Rs.. 900-1400 adld others 
Rs. 1200-1700. ·In that letter the Government stated that the 
question of seniority of those officers is still under consideration 
and the list sent was not arqmged in accordance with seniority. 
The Commission wrote to the Government on April 29, 1968 ask-
ing the Government to determine the seniority of those officers 
before it is asked to recommend one of them for being appointed 
as Director of Agriculture. 
The Government wrote back to the 
Commission on September 23, 1969 stating that the question of 
seniority of those officers cannot be easily settled as there were 
some complications and the Commission should proceed to select 
one of the officers mentioned in the list solely on the basis ol merit 
and suitability. 
After examininir the records of all the officers concerned·, the 
Commission recommended the name of the appellant. Immediately 
thereafter the third respondent approached the High Court with a 
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the recom-
mendation of the Commission may be quashed 

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