M. GURUMOORTHY versus ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM & NAGALAND & ORS.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 420 · Decided: 21-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

420 
A 
M. GURUMOORTHY 
v. 
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM & NAGALAND & ORS. 
April 21, 1971 
B 
(S. M. SIKRI, C. J., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVE!\ ANO. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.J 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 229-Appointment of Court emptu. 
yee1 by High Court-Government while sanctioning posts cannot lay dow1r 
condiiions on which appointments are to be made to said posts. 
The appellant was appointed Secretary to the Chief Justice of Assam 
with effect from August z~., 1956 against a permanent post sanctioned by 
the State Government. Thereafter the stenographers' service in the High 
Court 'Nas reorganised with the sanction of the State Government. Under 
the reorganisation scheme one of the seven posts of stenographer was to 
be that of Selection Grade Stenographer. On April 27, 1958 the Govern-
ment informed the Registrar that a stenographer whether of Selection 
Grade, Grade I (Senior) or Grade II when attached to the Chief Justice 
as Private Secretary was to have gazetted status. The letter went on to 
say: "Government's sanction for the selection Grade Stenographer was for 
the post of the Secretary to the Chief Justice-cum-Stenographer only and 
not for an additional Selection Grade Post." On May 7, 1959 the Chief 
Justice appointed the appe.llant as Secretary-cum-Selection Grade Steno-
grapher after merger of the two posts. The order was to take effect retros-
pectively from the date of the appellant's appointment as Secretary. The 
State Government objected to the appointment on the ground that the ap-
pointment of the appellant -was to the post of Private Secretary exclusive-
ly and that the post of Secretary could not be merged with that of Selection 
Grade Stenographer. The controversy not having been resolved the Ac-
countant General under the Government's instructions withheld the ap-
pellant's pay-slips. In a wrl! petition filed by the appellant Nayudu J. 
and Dutta J. took different views, the former against the appellant and 
the latter in his favour. The third Judge dismissed the appellant's petition. 
In appeal by certillca!e, 
HELD: (i) Dutta J. was right in holding that the Government bad 
authority to sanction the post but it could not interfere with the choice 
of the incumbent which undoubtedly was to be of the Chief Justice under 
Art. 229 of tho Constitution. [430G-H]. 
Clause (I) of the Art. 229 provides that appointments of officers and 
servants of a High Court shall be made by the O>ief Justice of the Court 
or such other Judge or oflicer of the Court as he may direct i.e. his 
nominee. The proviso emp::>wers the Governor of the State to require 
by Rule in certain cases to 1nake appointments after consultation with the 
State Public Service Commission. Clause (2) of the Article contains twr; 
important provisions. 
The first is that conditions of service of officers 
and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by Rules 
made by the Chief Justice or his nominee. This is however subject to pro-
visions of any law made by the legislature of the St!.te. The second is 
that the Rules so far as thc~y relate to salaries, allowance and pensions 
require the approval of the Governor. [427H-428BJ. 
GURUMOORTHY v. ACCT. GENERAL (Grover ,J.) 
Thus cl. (1) read with cl. (2) of Art. 229 confers exclusive power not 
only in the matter of appointments but also with regard to prescribing 
the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court by Rules 
on the Chief Justice of the Court This is subject to any legislation by the 
State Legislature but only in respect of conditions of service. 
[429AJ 
Ia the matter of appointments even the legislature cannot abridge or 
modify the powers conferred on the Chief Justice under cl. (1). The •P· 
proval of the Governor as noticed in the matter of the Rules is confined 
only to such rules as relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pension. This 
exception had to be made because the finances have to be provided by the 
Govern1r:ent and to the extent there is any involvement of expense the 
Government has to 'approve of it. 
[429B; 430A] 
The object of Art. 229 is to secure and maintain the indepeodenre 
of the Higl! Courts. The anxiety of the Constitution makers to achieve 
that object is fully shown by putting the administrative expenses of a High 
Court including all salaries, allowances and pension to or in respect of 
officers and servants of the Court at the same level as the salaries and 
all
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.