http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: G.R.BAQUAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/03/1970

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHAH, J.C. HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N. RAY, A.N. DUA, I.D.

CITATION:  1970 AIR 1376            1970 SCR  (3) 878  1970 SCC  (1) 619

ACT: Civil Service-Officer, junior to others, selected for a post equivalent  to  a higher post-Whether amounts  to  seniority over others-Scope ofsuch selection.

HEADNOTE: 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 Deputy Secretaries. 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]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1584  of 1968. Appeal  from the judgment and order dated December 21.  1966

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Writ Petition No.  40 of 1965. 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 UnderSecretary 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed 881