This matter has come to me on a difference between Nayudu, J., as he then was and Dutta, J. The facts necessary for our purpose may be narrated in some detail with re­levant references for easy understanding: The petitioner was a Stenographer in the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. He applied for and was appointed to the temporary post of the Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, on a pay scale of Rs. 400-20/ 2-500 sanctioned by the Government on 30-7-56. The petitioner joined this post on 24-8-56. Government sanction to the continuance of this temporary post was annually obtained up to 24th August. 1959. An earlier request by the High Court to make the post permanent was not acceded to by the Government on the ground that the post had not till then completed five years of its continuance. The Government, however, advised the High Court (vide Annexure VII dated 16-12-58) to submit a proposal for its per­manent retention through a Schedule of new scheme the following year. 2. In 1955 the Government of Assam recoganised the Stenographers' Cadre under the Government by a Resolution dated 22-10-55 (Annexure VI) and the following classification with improved scales of pay was introduced: (See scales of pay on page 27) Finding this improvement in the case of the Stenographers serving under the Gov­ernment, the High Court submitted to the Government a proposal for Re-orga­nisation of Stenographers' service in the High Court and the letter dated 14th February, 1956 (Annexure V) may be quoted: "I am directed to say that this Court Is experiencing much difficulties in secur­ing efficient Stenographers and it is hard­ly necessary for the Court to stress the importance of having competent Steno­graphers to take down their Lordships judgment in open Court and transcribe them. Every effort was made to secure efficient Stenographers but it was with­out success. 2. The sanctioned strength of Steno­graphers of this Court's Establishment to as follows:- Stenographer Grade 1-4 Stenographer Grade II-3 The nature of work of the Stenogra­phers attached to the Hon'ble Judges is of an ardous nature. They attend their Lordships' residences earlier than the scheduled office hours for taking dicta­tion of judgment, office files and other matters and again sometimes in the even­ing hours they attend the residences of Hon'ble Judges for taking dictation. They attend their Lordships' residences earlier than the scheduled office hours for taking dicta­tion of judgment, office files and other matters and again sometimes in the even­ing hours they attend the residences of Hon'ble Judges for taking dictation. They generally cannot avail themselves of any holidays in view of the volume of works entrusted to them. They do not receive any remuneration whatsoever for such ardous work. Further, the Stenographers already serving in this Court's Establish­ment have no incentive to do better and more efficient work as the existing Ste­nographers' Service do not offer suffi­cient incentive. 3. In view of the circumstances, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleas­ed to re-organise the Stenographers Ser­vice in the Assam High Court with effect from 21-5-55 as below to attract compe­tent Stenographer with sufficient incen­tive on the lines of the Government No­tification No. AAP.274/54/25. dated 22-10-1955. (a) Selection Grade Stenographer- There will be one Selection Grade Ste­nographer in the scale of pay of Rs. 400-20-600 p.m. plus dearness allowance and (Scales of Pay) "(1) Selection Grade Stenographer-Rs. 400-20-600 (2) Stenographer, GradeI (Senior)-Rs. 250-10-270-EB-15-360-(EB)-20-400. (3) Stenographer, Grade I (Junior)-Rs. 150-8-190-(EB)-10-290-(EB)-12-350. (4) Stenographer. Grade II- Rs. 100-6-130-EB-7-200. other allowances as admissible under the rules. (b) Stenographers Grade I (Senior)- There will be three posts of Stenogra­phers Grade 1 (Senior) in the scale of pay Of Rs. 250-10-270-EB-15-360-EB-20-400/-p. m. plus dearness allowance and other allowances as admissible under the rules. (c) Stenographer Grade 1 (Junior). There will be one post of Stenographer Grade I (Junior) in the scale of pay Rs. 150-8-190-EB-10-290-EB-12-350/- p.m. plus dearness allowance and other allow­ances as admissible under the rules. (d) Stenographer Grade II. There will be two posts of Stenogra­phers Grade II in the scale of pay of Rs. 100-6-130-EB-7-200-7-200/- p.m. plus dearness allowance and other allowances as admissible under the Rules. (e) Stenographers attached to the Hon'ble Judges shall be designated as Personal Assistants and they will be en­titled to a special pay of Rs. 50/- p. m. unless they hold the Selection Grade post. I am. therefore, to request the Govt to communicate their approval to the above proposal at an early date". The Government agreed to this proposal as per Annexure (X) dated 6-8-58, which also may be set out below: "With reference to your letter no. quoted above. 50/- p. m. unless they hold the Selection Grade post. I am. therefore, to request the Govt to communicate their approval to the above proposal at an early date". The Government agreed to this proposal as per Annexure (X) dated 6-8-58, which also may be set out below: "With reference to your letter no. quoted above. I am directed to say that file Governor of Assam is pleased to agree to the proposed re-organisation of the Stenographers Service in the Assam High Court, with effect from the 21-5-55 subject to the condition that the pro­cedure of recruitment, promotion etc. should be in the same or similar manner as laid down in Govt. Resolution No. AAP.274/54/25 dated 22-10-55 (enclosed lor ready reference). The pay scales may also be same as accepted by Govt. on the recommendation of the Pay Committee. Everything should be on the same lines as laid down in the aforesaid Resolution and there cannot be any relaxation in the matter of qualifica­tions". 3. It is seen that the petitioner was appointed against the temporary post of Secretary to Chief Justice outside the cadre of the Stenographers. At the time of his appointment there were already seven Stenographers, which was the 'sanctioned strength' as noticed earlier in the High Court letter (Annexure V) a fact which was reiterated by the High Court in Annexure XII dated 15-7-59 Even so, we find a letter from the Registrar of the High Court to the Government dated 16-12-58 (Annexure XI), same as Annexure 'Q' and the following extract thereof makes the point. "It may be mentioned in this connec­tion that although Government was pleas­ed to communicate their sanction to the re-organisation of the Stenographers service in this Court's establishment, a clarification on the point whether Gov­ernment sanction referred to the post of the Secretary to the Chief Justice-cum-Stenographer or a separate post in the Selection Grade of Stenographers, was sought for, to which no reply has yet been received by the Court. I am therefore to request you to ob­tain clarification on the point at an early date". For the first time, from the High Court and a combination of two posts, namely. Secretary to the Chief Justice-cum-Stenographer was envisaged in this paragraph. Next. Government's reply to this letter came by way of Annexure 'R' dated 27-4-59. which bears quoting In extenso as correspondence now reveals more than what meets the eye. For the first time, from the High Court and a combination of two posts, namely. Secretary to the Chief Justice-cum-Stenographer was envisaged in this paragraph. Next. Government's reply to this letter came by way of Annexure 'R' dated 27-4-59. which bears quoting In extenso as correspondence now reveals more than what meets the eye. "I am directed to say that beyond prescribing some posts of Stenographers, the High Court appears to have made no rules regarding the conditions of their service: and while agreeing to the reor­ganisation of Stenographers' service, sub­ject to the condition that their conditions of service should be similar to those laid down in Government Resolution dated 22-10-55, the intention of the Govern­ment only was that there should be uni­formity in service conditions throughout the State. It was far from the Govern­ment's intention to interfere in any way with the constitutional powers of the High Court. Government, therefore, consider that the High Court should frame rules in conformity with the said Government Resolution while reorganising the Steno­graphers' Service in the High Court. Further I am to invite your attention to High Court's letter No. 4921 Estt. dated' 16-12-b8. and to say that under the afore­said Government Resolution, a Stenogra­pher, whether a Selection Grade or Grade I or Grade II, when attached to a Minister or Chief Minister as Private Secretary is given the Gazetted Status. All other posts of Stenographers whether of Selection Grade, Grade I or Grade II in the Secretariat are non-gazetted. As such a Stenographer whether of the Selection Grade, Grade I (Senior) or Junior or Grade II when attached to the Chief Justice as Private Secretary, may be given the Gazetted Status. Government's sanction for the Selection Grade Steno­grapher was for the post of the Secre­tary to the Chief Justice-cum-Stenographer only and not for an additional Se­lection Grade post". The last sentence of the above paragraph has caused all confusion and misunder­standing. The High Court on receipt of this letter thought that Annexure 'R' is the sanction of the Government for the purpose of merger of the two posts, namely the temporary post of the Secre­tary and the Selection Grade post. The last sentence of the above paragraph has caused all confusion and misunder­standing. The High Court on receipt of this letter thought that Annexure 'R' is the sanction of the Government for the purpose of merger of the two posts, namely the temporary post of the Secre­tary and the Selection Grade post. Sinha, C. J., thereupon passed on 7-5-59 the following orders: (Annexures 'S' & 'T'.): (1) In exercise of the powers confer­red on me under Article 229 of the Con­stitution of India, read with (1) Rule 11 of the Assam High Court Appointment and Conditions of Service Rules; (2) Let­ter No. LJJ.74/56/26 dated 6th August, 1958; and (3) Letter No. LJJ.74/56/36 dated the 27th April, 1959, of the Gov­ernment of Assam, Law Department I hereby direct that the post of Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Justice be merged into the post of Selection Grade Steno­grapher, with effect from 24th August, 1956, the date when the present incum­bent, Sri M. Gurumoorthy was appointed. I further direct that the pay scale of the Secretary to the Hon'ble Justice be revised to Rs. 450-30-600/- p.m. with effect from 1st October, 1956, as recom­mended by the Pay Committee and ac­cepted by the Government'. (2) "In exercise of the powers confer­red on me under Article 229 of the Con­stitution of India, read with Rule 5 (1), Part II of the Assam High Court Ap­pointment and Conditions of Service Rules, I hereby appoint Sri M. Guru­moorthy, as Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Assam-cum-Selection Grade Stenographer in a substantive ca­pacity, in the pay scale of Rs. 450-30-600/-p. m., with effect from 24th August, 1958. Sri M. Gurumoorthy will be deemed to have been placed on probation with effect from 24th August, 1956, under Rule 4(ii), Part II of the Assam High Court Ap­pointment and Conditions of Service Rules." In pursuance of these orders, the peti­tioner joined his new post and was even drawing salary on those terms. It stated that his lien to his substantive post its also terminated. Already, however, a controversy regarding the regularity of the orders dated 7-5-59 was raised and the matter was being examined and pur­sued at different levels. It stated that his lien to his substantive post its also terminated. Already, however, a controversy regarding the regularity of the orders dated 7-5-59 was raised and the matter was being examined and pur­sued at different levels. In this context, Sinha, C. J., discover­ed that by the absorption of the petitioner as the Selection Grade Stenogra­pher, which was one of the seven sanc­tioned posts already being held substantively by other permanent incumbents, he unintentionally effected retrenchment of a permanent hand. The following ex­tract from the High Court's letter dated 15-7-59 (Annexure XII) may be quoted; "3. Thus while giving effect to the above Government order by appointing the Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Jus­tice to the Selection Grade post with effect from 24-8-56 one old Grade I Ste­nographer's post automatically stood re­trenched with effect from that date for which the Court has now got to move Government again for sanction of such post with retrospective effect". 4. So to counterbalance this unintend­ed retrenchment and to keep all the Ste­nographers on their liens to the respec­tive posts, one post of pre-organised Grade I (now Grade I Junior) is neces­sary with effect from 24-8-56. 5. I am, therefore, to request you that necessary sanction may kindly be ac­corded for the post of one pre-reorganisation Grade I Stenographer (now Steno­grapher Grade I Junior after reorganisa­tion) with effect from 24-8-56 and to com­municate the Government's sanction at a very early date'. Government wrote back on 27-11-59 pointing out the irregularity of the ap­pointment in absence of sanction, as will appear from the following extract from Annexure XIII, at page 148: "Prima facie therefore the A. G.'s con­tention as per the letter No. GAI/2611 dated 20-8-59 to the High Court appears to be correct and the High Court's order appointing Sri M. Gurumoorthy to the post of selection grade Steno with effect from 21-8-56 appears to be irregular." Sinha, C. J., also addressed a D.O. letter 3-8-60 to the Finance Minister detailing the above position and stating that while the temporary post of the Secretary thus stood retrenched with effect from 24-8-56, one permanent post of Stenographer fell short and therefore, the Court moved the Government on 15-7-59 to sanction one post of Stenographer, Grade I (Ju­nior) (vide Annexure A-l at page 71 of the record). 4. 4. One would wish that the sugges­tion of Sinha, C. J., in the shape of a proposal communicated from the High Court were acceded to by the Govern­ment to put an end to the controversy. However, this was not to be. By the time the Finance Minister replied on 12-1-61 (Annexure B-l at page 71 of the record) to Sinha, C. J.'s letter dated 3-8-60, the latter had already retired and Deka, C. J., assumed office. Suffice it to say that the Government did not agree to the High Court's proposal and made some counter suggestion which however, found favour with Deka, C. J., who on 8-2-61 vacated the two orders of Sinha, C. J., dated 7-5-59 and forwarded a pro­posal to Government for regularising the matters regarding the appointment. After a few months, Deka, C. J., was succeed­ed by Mehrotra, C. J., who on the repre­sentation of the petitioner vacated the order of Deka, C. J., on 27-9-61 in the following terms: "In my opinion, the order of my pre­decessor dated the 8th February, 1961, is without jurisdiction and is hereby vacated and the earlier orders dated the 7th May, 1959, passed by Chief Justice Sri C. P. Sinha, are hereby restored and shall re­main in force". CVide Annexure G-l at page 78) Mehrotra, C. J., also allowed other con­sequential increments to the petitioner. The Government on 7-10-61 (vide An­nexure M-l at page 85 of the record) directed the Accountant General, not to issue pay slip to the petitioner until fur­ther order and the impasse was created leading to the Writ Application in Civil Rule 349 of 1962 filed on 26-9-62 and withdrawn on certain terms on 12-7-63. Those terms having not been complied with, the present application under Arti­cle 226 of the Constitution was filed on 16-11-65 and a Rule Nisi issued. 5. It may be mentioned, meanwhile 'the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Registrar of the High Court on 2-1-64 (vide Annexure 'M' at page 52 of the re­cord) and even a Selection Grade Steno­grapher was also appointed from the existing Cadre of the Stenographers with effect from 3-1-64. 6. 5. It may be mentioned, meanwhile 'the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Registrar of the High Court on 2-1-64 (vide Annexure 'M' at page 52 of the re­cord) and even a Selection Grade Steno­grapher was also appointed from the existing Cadre of the Stenographers with effect from 3-1-64. 6. The petitioner prays in this appli­cation as under: "To issue Rule on the Respondents to show cause why a writ in nature of Man­damus or a writ of like nature should not be issued directing the Respondents No. 1 and No. 2 to give full effect to the orders dated the 7th May, 1959 and 27th September, 1961, passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and to act in terms of the said orders dated 7th May, 1959 and 27th September, 1961." The petitioner abandoned the additional prayer concerning his appointment as Assistant Registrar, and it is not neces­sary to set out that relief. 7. Mr. Ghose, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by Sinha, C. J., on 7-5-59 in exer­cise of his powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India are valid and binding in law, and that the sanction for the post is to be found in Annexures 'P', 'Q' and 'R', and that the orders of Sinha, C. J., clearly mention the Annexures 'P' and 'R' on which the order was based. Dr. Medhi, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents, contests this proposition and submits that in absence of any rules or approval of the Governor under Article 229 of the Constitution, regarding sala­ries and other specified matters, An­nexures 'P', 'Q' and 'R' cannot be a sub­stitute for a rule or a sanction in this behalf. He, therefore, submits that the orders of Sinha, C. J., are void ab initio and, as such, the order of Deka, C. J., dated 8-2-61 was valid and the order of Mehrotra, C. J., restoring the order of Sinha, C. J., was clearly unconstitutional and invalid. Dr. He, therefore, submits that the orders of Sinha, C. J., are void ab initio and, as such, the order of Deka, C. J., dated 8-2-61 was valid and the order of Mehrotra, C. J., restoring the order of Sinha, C. J., was clearly unconstitutional and invalid. Dr. Medhi urged two preli­minary objections, firstly that since the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Registrar on 2-1-64, he has no legal right to maintain this petition and obtain the reliefs asked for, and, secondly that the petitioner's entire claim now would be one for recovery of dues or its adjust­ment and this he could not ask for in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Con­stitution as an alternative remedy by way of a suit is available to him. Both these submissions found favour with Nayudu, J., as he then was, and even if it were possible to dispose of this Rule on such pleas, the matter being one of constitutional importance needs to be ju­dicially settled on the merits. 8. The present controversy Is between the Chief Justice on the administrative side and the State Government on the other. This matter will have to be ap­proached objectively, completely oblivi­ous of the attitude of the parties facilely coming to the surface in the corres­pondence. 9. The Constitution haying entrusted its powers and responsibilities to differ­ent persons or authorities at different stages under diverse circumstances, those persons or authorities will have to work and operate in harmony and not in hos­tility, seeming or otherwise. 10. The checks and balances replete in our Constitution do not necessarily mean subordination of one authority to another. These constitutional safeguards are the safety valves of a democratic Constitution as is ours. Powers properly and tolerantly exercised strictly within limits laid down in a written Constitu­tion, cannot engender unhappy frictions. 11. Once, for example, the Rules are made by the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution and those relat­ing to salaries and other specified matters have been approved by the Governor, the appointment thereafter by the Chief Jus­tice of the personnel cannot be question­ed by the Governor nor by anyone. The Chief Justice is then the sole authority while exercising the powers within the framework of Article 229 of the Consti­tution read with the Rules duly framed. The Chief Justice is then the sole authority while exercising the powers within the framework of Article 229 of the Consti­tution read with the Rules duly framed. To illustrate, in the present context, if the particular additional post of the petitioner in the cadre with the salaries fixed has been sanctioned by the Governor there will be no more jurisdiction left in the Governor to interfere with the actual appointment. The validity or other­wise of the orders in question will there­fore have to be determined on the langu­age of Article 229 of the Constitution. The most important question thus to be considered is what are the powers of the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution and what are his limitations. 12. We may read now Article 229 of the Constitution: "229. (1) Appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct: Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connect­ed with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commis­sion. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and ser­vants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court au­thorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose: Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, re­quire the approval of the Governor of the State. (3) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including all salaries, allow­ances and pensions payable to or in res­pect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon the Conso­lidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund", 13. It is admitted that the Governor of the State has not made any rules with reference to the proviso to Clause (1) of Article 229 of the Constitution. It is admitted that the Governor of the State has not made any rules with reference to the proviso to Clause (1) of Article 229 of the Constitution. In any case, this proviso does not require any consideration. From a perusal of Article 229 (1), it is clear that the Chief Jus­tice or such other Judge or Officer of the Court, as he may direct, is the final au­thority in appointing officers and servants of the High Court subject of course to the proviso in respect of person not al­ready attached to the Court. It is also admitted that the State Legislature has not made any law under Clause (2) of Article 229 regarding the conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court, It, therefore, remains for the Chief Justice of the High Court to make rules regarding the conditions of service of officers and servants thereof. This power of the Chief Justice can be exercised by any Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make the Rules. Even if these Rules are made under Clause (2), they will be subject to the provisions of any law made by the State Legislature, but, as pointed out earlier, no such laws have been made. While under Clause (2) the Chief Justice is authorised to make the Rules in respect of the conditions of ser­vice of officers and servants of the High Court, the proviso to this clause requires that the rules so made, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State. It will be seen that the conditions of service mentioned in Clause (2) are wide enough to include all kinds of conditions of service of offi­cers and servants and without the pro­viso it might have been embraced the salaries, allowances, leave or pensions Under Article 229 it is necessary for the Chief Justice to make the rules under Clause (2) and also to obtain the appro­val of the Governor in respect of those rules which he makes relating to sala­ries, allowances, leave or pensions. It is, therefore, clear that although the Chief Justice makes the rules regarding the conditions of service and even can at the first instance propose rules relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, those relating to the latter have got to receive the approval of the Governor of the State before these can be enforced. The rules regarding the conditions of ser­vice in general which have nothing to do with salaries, allowances, leave or pensions need not be sent to the Gover­nor for approval. In order to understand the scheme of this Article as to why this dichotomy was introduced, we have to refer to some other Articles of the Con­stitution. 14. Article 202 of the Constitution re­lates to the procedure in finance matters and may usefully be set out here: "202 (1) The Governor shall in respect of every financial year cause to be laid before the House or Houses of the Legis­lature of the State a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the State for that year, in this Part re­ferred to as the "annual financial state­ment". (2) The estimates of expenditure em­bodied in the annual financial statement shall show separately- (a) the sums required to meet expen­diture described by this Constitution as expenditure charged upon the Consoli­dated Fund of the State; and (b) the sums required to meet other expenditure proposed to be made from the Consolidated Fund of the State; and shall distinguish expenditure on re­venue account from other expenditure. (3) The following expenditure shall be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of each State- (a) the emoluments and allowances of the Governor and other expenditure re­lating to his office; (b) the salaries and allowances of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, also of the Chairman and the Deputy Chair­man of the Legislative Council; (c) debt charges for which the State is liable including interest, sinking fund charges and redemption charges and other expenditure relating to the raising of loans and the service and redemption of debt; (d) expenditure in respect of the sala­ries and allowances of Judges of any High Court; (e) any sums required to satisfy any judgment, decree or award of any Court or arbitral tribunal; (f) any other expenditure declared by this Constitution or by the Legislature of the State by law, to be so charged". Article 203 provides as follows:- "203. (1) So much of the estimates as relate to expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of a State shall not be submitted to the vote of the Legisla-» tive Assembly but the discussion hi the Legislature of any of those estimates. (2) So much of the said estimates as relate to other expenditure shall be sub­mitted in the form of demands for grants to the Legislative Assembly, and the Le­gislative Assembly shall have power to assent, or to refuse to assent, to any de­mand, or to assent to any demand sub­ject to a reduction of the amount speci­fied therein. (3) No demand for a grant shall be made except on the recommendation of the Governor". Article 204 may be quoted here: "204 (1) As soon as may be after the grants under Article 203 have been made by the Assembly, there shall be intro­duced a Bill to provide for the appro­priation out of the Consolidated Fund of the State of all moneys required to meet- (a) the grants so made by the Assem­bly; and (b) the expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State but not exceeding in any case the amount shown in the statement previously laid before the House or Houses. (2) No amendment shall be proposed to any such Bill in the House or either House of the Legislature of the State which will have the effect of varying the amount or altering the destination of any grant so made or of varying the amount of any expenditure charged on the Con­solidated Fund of the State, and the de­cision of the person presiding as to whe­ther an amendment is inadmissible under this clause shall /be final. (3) Subject to the provisions of Arti­cles 205 and 206, no money shall be with­drawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State except under appropriation made by law passed in accordance with the provisions of this Article. Article 205, which is not necessary to be quoted, relates to the procedure regard­ing the supplementary, additional or ex­cess grants. 15. A perusal of Articles 202 to 204 as well as the remaining Articles 205 to 207 of the Constitution clearly bring out the Governor's responsibility in financial matters and it is because of this respon­sibility entrusted to him under the Con­stitution that some provision has to be made even in the matter of the High Court's expenditure relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions of the offi­cers and servants of the High Court as is provided under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution. Since the source of the money is from Government exchequer, it is necessary for the Governor to know what the expenditure is under various heads. It is elementary that no money can be spent out of public revenues with­out an Appropriation Act authorising the expenditures under various heads. Since money has to be provided for by the Government, it is necessary that the rules relating to salaries, and other al­lowances etc., as provided under Arti­cle 229 (2) of the Constitution, have got to be approved by the Governor so that he may know the demands that would be made under various heads. There may be another indirect reason namely that some uniformity has to be maintained in the salaries of the various services. This being the position, the next ques­tion which we have to address ourselves is whether Rules have been framed by the Chief Justice under Article 229 (2) and whether the same received the ap­proval of the Governor as required in respect of the items enumerated in the proviso to Article 229 (2) of the Consti­tution. This being the position, the next ques­tion which we have to address ourselves is whether Rules have been framed by the Chief Justice under Article 229 (2) and whether the same received the ap­proval of the Governor as required in respect of the items enumerated in the proviso to Article 229 (2) of the Consti­tution. It is admitted by Counsel of both sides that the Assam High Court Ap­pointment and Conditions of Service Rules 1956 hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Rules, apply in the present case and that the same in respect of the items enumerated in the proviso to Article 229 (2) had received the Governor's approval. It is admitted that the Rules which were framed in 1961 by the Chief Justice were not sent to the Governor for his approval, and, therefore, no reference would be made to these rules, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions. Rule 4 of the 1956 Rules may be set out: "Each category of the Services consists of so many and such posts as are set out in Schedule I hereto annexed sub­ject to any additions thereto or modifi­cation thereof as may from time to time be fixed by the Chief Justice with the approval of the Governor where neces­sary". Schedule I sets out the pay and cadre of High Court service and posts, and the material portion is under Class III Ser­vices against Category Nos. 12 and 13, which may be extracted here: Category XII. Stenographer Grade I, Stenographer attach Four Rs. 150.8-190 (E B.)ed to the chief justice drawn a special pay Posts. 10-290 (E B) Rs. of Rs.50/- per annum for Perforating the -12. 350 per mensem, duties of Private Secretary. Category XIII. Stenographer Grade IL Three Bs. 100.6-180 (E. B.) posts. 7-200 per mensem Schedule II enumerates the tests to be passed by incumbent before confirmation. It will be seen that the test, to be passed by the Stenographers Grade I and Grade II is also separately shown. - The Sche­dule which enumerates the various ser­vices and posts does not, however, men­tion the post of the Secretary to the Chief Justice except what has been noted against category XII, above. 18. It will be seen that the test, to be passed by the Stenographers Grade I and Grade II is also separately shown. - The Sche­dule which enumerates the various ser­vices and posts does not, however, men­tion the post of the Secretary to the Chief Justice except what has been noted against category XII, above. 18. The 1956 Rules thus not having made any provision for such an appoint­ment as made, it is necessary to find out if the letters dated 5-8-58 (Annexure P) and 27-4-59 (Annexure R) of the Gov­ernment of Assam contained the Gov­ernor's sanction for the post. From the very, order dated 7-5-59 of Sinha, C. J., it is clear that the 1956 Rules alone would not be sufficient to make the appointment in question, in the exercise of the powers under Article 229 of the Constitution, He had thus to refer to the letters, Annexures P and R, in his order. It is, therefore, to be seen whether these let­ters can be interpreted as Governor's sanction for the post to which the peti­tioner was appointed by the order of the Chief Justice on 7-5-59. 17. Shortly put, the Government ver­sion is that it has sanctioned one Selec­tion Grade post in the total strength of the Cadre of seven Stenographers in the High Court. It has also made it clear that the Selection Grade post should be filled by promotion strictly on merit from Stenographers Grade I (Senior and Ju­nior) appointed substantively. According to Government, there were already seven permanent Stenographers holding the seven posts including some in Grade I in the Cadre. The order appointing the petitioner, a temporary employee in the High Court, from outside the cadre will make the total strength of the Cadre of Stenographers eight, for which there was no Government sanction. This position appears to be very well conceded by the High Court (vide Annexure XII dated 15-7-59) when it had written for sanc­tion for an additional post of a Steno­grapher subsequent to Sinha, C. J.'s orders dated 7-5-59. This would also go to show that so far as the Annexures P, Q and R are concerned, even the High Court did not think that these were suffi­cient as a sanction for the petitioner's appointment already made. 18. This would also go to show that so far as the Annexures P, Q and R are concerned, even the High Court did not think that these were suffi­cient as a sanction for the petitioner's appointment already made. 18. In the instant case, under Article 229 of the Constitution it is clear that the Chief Justice has the power of giving appointment to the petitioner. The Chief Justice can prescribe his_ conditions of service. The Chief Justice cannot, how­ever, make an additional appointment of a Secretary-cum-Selection Grade Steno­grapher on a particular scale in absence of a sanction from the Government for the eighth or such a post. 19. In absence of any State Legisla­tion in this regard, the proper implemen­tation of the powers under Article 229 of the Constitution, abridged by the limitations imposed enabling the Execu­tive to retain control over the financial aspect, is that the Chief Justice or some Judge or Officer of the Court authorised by him should make the rules prescrib­ing conditions of service and those por­tions relating to salaries, allowances, leave and pensions should be sent to the Governor for his approval. It is only when approval is accorded by the Gov­ernor, such rules, relating to matters spe­cified, have statutory force under Article 229 of the Constitution. It is admitted by either party that the 1956 Rules are holding the field, but in these Rules we do not find any post of the Secretary-cum-Selection Grade Stenographer. These Rules ought to have been amended from time to time and the necessary amend­ments incorporated therein. At any rate, the Rules regarding salaries incorporat­ed in the relevant notifications of the Government, which were, on approval by the Governor, made applicable to the High Court staff, are inextricably con­nected with and become bound up with the 1956 Rules framed under Article 229 of the Constitution. 20. But the dispute arises as to the interpretation of Annexures P, Q and R. Annexure P refers to Annexure VI dated 22-10-55 and insists that there can be no relaxation in the matter of qualifi­cations and the source of recruitment. Annexure Q makes only a query whe­ther the Government sanction referred to the post of the Secretary to the Chief Justice-cum-Stenographer or a separate post in the Selection Grade of Stenogra­phers. Annexure Q makes only a query whe­ther the Government sanction referred to the post of the Secretary to the Chief Justice-cum-Stenographer or a separate post in the Selection Grade of Stenogra­phers. Government replied as per An­nexure R, that Government sanction for the Selection Grade Stenographer was for the post of Secretary to the Chief Justice-cum-Stenographer only and not an additional Selection Grade post. An­nexure R seeks to explain that any Ste­nographer whether of Selection Grade, Grade I (Senior or Junior) or Grade II, when attached to the Chief Justice as Private Secretary may be given the Gazetted status as in the case of their counterparts in the Secretariat attached to the Ministers. It is clear that the sub­stantive post is that of the Selection Grade Stenographer and that grade has been introduced (vide Annexure P dated 6-8-58) in the High Court while the total strength remained seven as before. This improvement in the Stenographers' ser­vice was in pursuance of the demand for giving incentive to the Stenographers in the High Court. When this notification with the various improved grades was made applicable by the Governor's order, 'the Stenographers in the Cadre of the High Court would naturally look forward to the boons available therein. It will de­feat the very purpose of the notification registering an improvement in their grades if someone from outside the cadre bears away the bell and steals a march over those for whom the battle has been won. Annexure R cannot be interpreted to mean and substitute for a sanction of an eighth post in the Stenographers' Cadre. All that is meant was that who­ever was appointed to the Selection Grade would not fill an extra post. One of the posts in Grade I (Senior or Junior) in terms of the notification dated 22-10-55 would be upgraded to the Selection Grade. It further indicated that if the High Court desired, the Selection Grade Ste­nographer attached to the Chief Justice might be also the Secretary. It was not possible to pick up the new grade from the notification and treat it in an isolated way discarding the conditions for the re­vised grade. Under Article 229 of the Constitution the Governor has to approve this revision relating to salaries etc., and those rules prescribing the conditions can­not be given a go-by. It was not possible to pick up the new grade from the notification and treat it in an isolated way discarding the conditions for the re­vised grade. Under Article 229 of the Constitution the Governor has to approve this revision relating to salaries etc., and those rules prescribing the conditions can­not be given a go-by. The orders dated 7-5-59 somehow lost sight of the notifi­cation dated 22-10-55, specifically refer­red to in Annexure P which was the new charter of salaries for the employees of the High Court subject to the conditions set out therein. This would not have happened if proper rules were framed in terms of the Government notifications so far as relating to salaries; then one would not require to hunt up for the actual position by perusal of several notifica­tions and correspondence. This contro­versy would have died a natural death, if such rules as laid down under Article 229 of the Constitution were even later framed and published. It was, therefore, open to the High Court to submit a pro­posal to the Government for the post of the Secretary to the Chief Justice giving him the pay scale of Selection Grade, if it so desired, but instead it allowed the temporary post to lapse with effect from 24-8-59 and the order dated 7-5-59 result­ed in adding one more post to the stren­gth of the Stenographers' Cadre, which the Government rightly pointed out as being without the approval of the Gover­nor. 21. I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that there was no sanction for the post in which the petitioner was ap­pointed as per order made by Sinha, C. J., on 7-5-59 and consequently, the two orders dated 7-5-59 (Annexures S and T) have no legal force being not in confor­mity with the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution. That being the posi­tion, Mehrotra, C. J.'s order dated 27-9-61 restoring these void orders has no effect in law and must be held to be non est. I am further of the opinion that Deka, C. J., was competent to review the order of Sinha, C. J., and his order vacat­ing Sinha, C. J.'s order is not open to question as being without jurisdiction. 22. In. the result, I agree with the order passed by Nayudu, J., as he then was, and order that the Rule be discharg­ed without costs. 23. 22. In. the result, I agree with the order passed by Nayudu, J., as he then was, and order that the Rule be discharg­ed without costs. 23. It may, however, be hoped that the Government of Assam may consider about the hardship caused to the peti­tioner on account of the financial im­plications consequent on the reversal of the orders of Sinha, C. J. and Mehrotra, C. J., for which the petitioner was not at all to blame. Rule discharged.