G. R. Baqual Vs. State of Jammu &
Kashmir  INSC 52 (4 March 1970)
04/03/1970 HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)
HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHAH, J.C.
CITATION: 1970 AIR 1376 1970 SCR (3) 878 1970
SCC (1) 619
Civil Service-Officer, junior to others,
selected for a post equivalent to a higher post-Whether amounts to seniority
over others-Scope of such selection.
The appellant and respondents 2, 3 and 4 were
superintendents in the State Secretariat service, the appellant being junior to
the three respondents. In 1959, the appellant was appointed as Personal
Assistant to the Chairman of the Legislative Council, and shortly thereafter,
the three respondents were promoted as Under Secretaries.
In 1963, the appellant was transferred to the
Secretariat as Under Secretary. In 1964, the three respondents were promoted as
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 Secretariat (Regulation and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1959, a P.A. to the Chairman of 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 post that matters and there
the appellant was junior to the respondents. [879 E-F. G-H; 880 A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1584 of 1968.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
December 21. 1966 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Writ Petition No. 40
A. S. R. Chari, K. R. Chaudhuri and K.
Rajendra Chaudhuri, for the appellant.
N. S. Bindra, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma,
for respon- dent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah CJ. This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Jammu
& Kashmir High Court, December 21, 1966, dismissing a petition under Art.
32(2-A) of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution filed by the
petitioner/appellant G. R.
Baqual 8 7 9 for certain reliefs on the
ground that he, has been discriminated against and punished without recourse to
statutory provisions and procedure. The facts of the case are as follows :
The appellant who is a Graduate of the Punjab
University entered the Secretariat service of the Jammu & Kashmir State on
November 8, 1946 as a clerk. Later he was promoted as Superintendent 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 Personal 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 October 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.
25,0-500. He claimed seniority against other
Under- Secretaries when on April 14, 1964, the Government promoted four
Under-Secretaries 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 Chairman of the
Legislative Council which is equated with an Under-Secretary -under the Jammu
& Kashmir Legislative Council Secretariat (Regulation and conditions of
Service) Rules, 1959. Under these rules, a P.A. to the Chairman of the
Legislative Council is equated to a P. A. to a Minister and he is in his turn
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 gets.
It was admitted before us that the appellant
was not senior to the other Superintendents in the substantive post of
Superintendent. In other -words, if everything had been equal, he would be
junior to respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and would take his turn for promotion
after them. He claims seniority on the basis of his deputation as P.A. to the
Chairman of the Legislative Council and his supposed equation to an
Under-Secretary. As a matter of fact, he was not promoted as Under-Secretary.
He was only selected to serve as P.A. and that carried the pay and the gazetted
rank. It happens frequently in service that such selections are made
particularly in Secretarial line by Ministers, Chairman of Legislative Council
or Speaker. Even in this Court such selections are made of persons to serve as
Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges. This selection- carries more pay while it
lasts and gives a rank which the holder enjoys as a gazetted officer, but it
does 880 not confer any more privilege. In matters of promotion and ranking,
the substantive posts matter, and here, the appellant admits that he was junior
to the others. His appointment to a post which in emoluments was equal to that
of an Under-Secretary was not in the regular line. It was by selection and
could not therefore confer on him any privilege beyond holding that post as
long as the Chairman of the Legislative Council would have him as his Personal
Assistant.. The appellant tried to prove his case by reference to rule 24 of
the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control a.-id Appeal)
Rules, 1956. But that rule also says that the seniority of a person has
reference to the service, class, category or grade with reference to which the
question had arisen and' that such seniority shall be determined by the date of
his first appointment in such class, service, category or grade as the case may
be. Here the service on which emphasis should be placed is the post of
Superintendent and there, the appellant admits that he is junior to respondents
2, 3 and
4. Therefore, neither on the basis of the
statutory rule nor on tile basis of any practice or convention is he entitled
to seniority from the post of Superintendent to the next grade. He must take
his turn in accordance with his seniority as Superintendent which was his
substantive post when his deputation began. We see no force in this appeal
which 'I be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.