Judgment 1. The petitioner in this case, at the relevant time, was a B-Grade male nurse, working in the Patna Medical College Hospital at Patna. The State Government decided, according to the petitioners case, to upgrade all the 59 posts of B-Grade nurses in the said Hospital to A-Grade. This would appear from a copy of the letter the State Government to the Accountant General, Bihar (Annexure 4) There were 17 posts of B-Grade nurses in the Darbhanga Medical College Hospital and all the 76 posts were upgraded to A-Grade from the 1st April, 1964. It appears, due to one reason or the other, the petitioner was not in the good books of the authorities concerned. He was not allowed to draw the emoluments payable to A-Grade nurses. An order was made by the Assistant Director of Health Services, Bihar, on the 17th December, 1964 (a copy of which order is Annexure 2), transferring the petitioner from Patna Medical College Hospital to T. B. Hospital, at Koelwar. In this order it was indicated that although he was being transferred to a vacant post of A-Grade Nurse but he would get his pay etc. in accordance with the scale payable to a B-Grade Nurse. The Petitioner, because of the illness of his wife, went on leave for some time and eventually joined the Koelwar T. B. Hospital on the 2nd March, 1965. He made several representations to the Government, sometimes himself and sometimes through his wife, to treat him A-Grade and to pay him emoluments of A-Grade Nurse. The Government or its officers, who are Respondents 1 to 4 in this writ application, did not dispose of his representations. 2. One more fact may be stated at this stage, that some adverse remarks said to have been made in the years 1962-64 were communicated to the petitioner in December, 1964, when he was on leave. A copy of these remarks is Annexure "6" to the writ application. In answer to one of the representations sent by the wife of the petitioner, a letter was sent by the Assistant Director of Health Services, Bihar, on the 19th November, 1966 (a copy of which is Annexure *7 to the writ application), stating therein that because of the adverse remarks in the character roll of the petitioner he could not be put in A Grade. 3. 3. The petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court against the respondents to show cause as to why Annexure "6 and 7 be not quashed and why the petitioner be not treated to be a Grade A Nurse in the nursing cadre, by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filled on behalf of the respondents and learned Standing Counsel No. 1 has appeared to oppose the rule. 5. The stand in the counter-affidavit as also in the argument is that the posts of B-Grade nurses of the Patna Medical College Hospital had been upgraded to A-Grade, but all B-Grade Nurses, who had been posted against those posts had not been promoted. The petitioner was not promoted from B-Grade to A-Grade and, therefore, he cannot claim to be treated in that grade. 6. In our opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner that he was put in A-Grade because of the Government order contained in Annexure *4 is well founded and must be accepted as correct. The stand on behalf of the Government is not tenable in law. All the 59 posts of B-Grade Nurses in Patna Medical College Hospital, as also 17 such posts in the Darbhanga Medical College Hospital were upgraded and an extra cost of Rs. 46,531/- was sanctioned by the Government. The statement of expenditure given in Annexure 4 would indicate that the difference of cost in B-Grade and A-Grade Nurses was Rs. 612.25 paise per annum, and, for 76 B-Grade Nurses posts, the sum sanctioned was Rs. 46,531/-, which- is exactly the difference of costs re-quired for all the 76 posts. When the posts were upgraded, there was no question of promotion of the incumbent to the posts. The incumbent automatically got promotion and from B-Grade Nurse, he or she became A-Grade Nurse. It seems to us that due to one reason or the other, as we have said above, the petitioner was not in the good books of the immediate bosses and, therefore, they did not allow him to draw the emoluments of A-Grade Nurse. There is nothing in Annexure 4 to indicate that the authorities were justified in law in doing so. There is nothing in Annexure 4 to indicate that the authorities were justified in law in doing so. On the upgrading of the post held by the petitioner, and, without any reservation of any right to scan or screen his case, in the eyes of law, he came to hold the post of an A-Grade Nurse from the 1st April, 1964, and became entitled to the emoluments payable to that Grade Nurse. 7. It is not necessary in this case for us to examine the propriety or impropriety of the adverse remarks made against the petitioner, as contained in Annexure 6, nor is it necessary to go into the question of the alleged mala fide in that regard. That question would have been pertinent if we could persuade ourselves to accept the arguments put forward on behalf of the State Government that the promotion of the petitioner from B-Grade to A-Grade depended upon the consideration of his character roll or other materials. It was not so. 8. In the result, we allow the application and hold that the petitioner is holding the post of an A-Grade Nurse since the 1st April, 1964, and direct the respondents to treat him as such. It is not necessary, nor advisable, in this writ application, to quash either Annexure 6 or Annexure 7, as prayed for by the petitioner. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.