# HARi NANDAN SHARAN BHATNAGAR v. S. N. DIXIT & ANR

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 421
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-04-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1020 of 1966
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, G. K. Mitter
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hari-nandan-sharan-bhatnagar-v-s-n-dixit-anr-4797
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

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
Rules recruitment to the post of Superintendent shall be made by promotion 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 Commission 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 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
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 appointA
ment was made after thorough scrutiny of representations received and
after consideration of the recommendation made by the Secretary of the
Legislative Department.
[424E)

## Text

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 payPost 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 promotion 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 Commission 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 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
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 appointA
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 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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Hill NANDAN v. S, N. DlX!T (Mi~ter, J.)
423
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."
The apP"'Jlant filed a suit in the court of the Munsif of South
Lucknow impleading the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Speake_r,
Legislative Assembly of the State and Dixit as defendants thereJJl
and praying for a dec:ee for _declaratio'.1 that he s~ou~d be deemed
entitled to the post of Supermtendent m the Legislative A.ssembly
with effect from 1st January 1962 and a further declarauon that
the order dated October 7 1961 appointing defendant No. 3 as
SuperintendQnt was illegal' and ultra vires.
Written statements
were filed on behalf of the defendants.
The learned Munsif held
in the ptaintift's favour.
His judgment was upheld in .appeal by
the Civil Judge Lucknow. The same was reversed m Second
Appeal to the High Court.
The order;
1Qf the Speaker passed in October 1961 shows that
he had considered the matter carefully before appointing Dixit
to the post. tbe contention of learned counsel for the appellant
~as that the post could not be given to a person who was not a
superior service Assistant and the "grade of superior service
assistants in the' Council Department" meant and included only
those persons whose names were borne on the roll of Upper
Division Assistants.
Ex. 10 the gradation list of permanent
ministerial estabUshment of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly Secretariat as it stood in April 1956 shows that the scales of
pay of Upper Division Assistants, Translators, Reference Clerk,
Treasurers, Stenographer to Secretary and Assistant Librarian
were the same, namely, Rs. 160-15-280-EB-20-400.
By an
order o.f the Governor dated March 16, 1959 efficiency bars in
the scales of pay of all the above posts were uniformly altered and
fixed at Rs. 220 and Rs. 300. The Hign Court took the view
that 'grade' in R.. 7 was suggestive of status and it did not refer
to a class or a particular class. According to the High Court :
M All officials working in the same scale of pay in a
department, although holding posts with different designations, shall be deemed to be holding posts in the
same grade, because their rank in the same department
will be the same and equal to one another."
The High (Jourt noted that the dictionary meaning of "grade"
was 'raink' position in scale, a class or position in a class according to the value.' In our view the High Court came to the correct conclusion in holding that the post was 1 selection post and
seniority by itself was not a sufficient qualification for promotion.
The Speaker had to take into consideration the claims of Senior
424
SUPlll!MB COWT lll!POllTS
[1970] I S.C.R.
':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.
In the result the appeal is dismissed, but we make no order
as to costs.
·G.C.
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
c
D
E