Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The selection post of Sadar Munsarim fell vacant on 2nd March, 1972 on the retirement of Ali Naqvi. The District Judge, Allahabad after considering the eligible candidates, appointed Satya Deo Singh, respondent No. 1 to that post by an order dated 17th February, 1972. Hari Mohan Lal, the appellant, fell aggrieved. He filed an appeal before the Ho'ble the Administrative Judge of the High Court. The Administrative Judge after considering the comments of the District Judge as well as the counter representation made by the respondent, allowed the appeal on 9th October, 1972 and directed that Hari Mohan Lal be appointed to the post of Sadar Munsarim.
(2.) Satya Deo Singh, respondent, questioned the validity of the order passed by he Administrative Judge by a writ petition on the judicial side of this Court. A learned Single Judge repelled the submission that no appeal lay. He held that in addition to the provisions contained in the Manual of Government orders, permitting an appeal to the higher authorities, Rule 15 of the U. P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules make an express provision for an appeal. Under it, if an appointment has been made otherwise than in accordance with rules an appeal lies to the High Court. The appeal filed by the appellant was maintainable on the ground that the appointment of the respondent had been made in violation of the rules. The learned judge held that the District Judge had applied the correct criterion in making the selection. He did not violate the provisions of Rule 20 (3) of the Rules. The Administrative Judge could not interfere merely because he took a different opinion of the comparative merits of the two candidates. The learned Judge held that the view of the Administrative Judge that both the candida es were of outstanding merits was not justified. The interpretation placed by the Administrative Judge on Rule 20 (3) was incorrect. The Administrative Judge was in error in not considering the various aspects which were expressly considered by the District Judge in holding that the respondent was of outstanding merit. On these findings the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Administrative Judge was quashed. Aggrieved, Hari Mohan Lal has come up in appeal.
(3.) The proviso to Rule 15 (2) of the U. P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, which governs appointments to the posts in the district court, provides appeal to the High Court to any person aggrieved by (any order of appointment "made otherwise than in accordance with rules". The question is whether the Administrative Judge committed any manifest error of law in holding that the District Judge's order was not in accordance with the rules.;