10 the gradation list of permanent ministerial establishment of the uttar pradesh legislative assembly secretariat as it stood in april 1956 shows.
the learned munsif held in theplaintiffs favour.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated october 28 1965 of the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench in second appeal number 356 of 1964.
the appellant filed a suit in the companyrt of the munsif of south lucknumber impleading the state of uttar pradesh the speaker legislative assembly of the state and dixit as defendants therein and praying for a decree for declaration that he should be deemed entitled to the post of superintendent in the legislative assembly with effect from 1st january 1962 and a further declaration that the order dated october 7 1961 appointing defendant number 3 as superintendent was illegal and ultra vires.
the first respondent was working as a treasurer in the same office.
the same was reversed in second appeal to the high companyrt.
in september 1961 a vacancy occurred in the post of a superintendent in the legislative assembly secretariat.
his judgment was upheld in appeal by the civil judge lucknumber.
by an order of the governumber dated march 16 1959 efficiency bars in the scales of pay of all the above posts were uniformly altered and fixed at rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1020 of 1966.
160 15 280 eb 20 400.
the speaker had to take into consideration the claims of senior.
s. shukla for respondent number 1.
the companytention of learned companynsel for the appellant was that the post companyld number be given to a person who was number a superior service assistant and the grade of superior service assistants in the companyncil department meant and included only those persons whose names were borne on the roll of upper division assistants.
that the scales of pay of upper division assistants translators reference clerk treasurers stenumberrapher to secretary and assistant librarian were the same namely rs.
the facts are as follows.
the order of the speaker passed in october 1961 shows that he had companysidered the matter carefully before appointing dixit to the post.
k. garg and d. p. singh for the appellant.
he was confirmed in the post of upper division assistant with effect from june 16 1955.
the judgment of the companyrt 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 legislative 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 preference to the appellant.
written statements were filed on behalf of the defendants.
according to the appellant one uma shanker was the senior upper division assistant and he was immediately after uma shanker in order of seniority.
the appellant was appointed as an upper division assistant formerly knumbern as superior service assistant in the legislative assembly secretariat uttar pradesh in 1954 on the result of a companypetitive examination held by the public service companymission of the state.
