JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - 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 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. 4. Coming to the merits of the matter, Rule 20 (3) of the rules provides:- "20 (3) Posts other than those mentioned in clause (2) above for persons in the pre-1931 scale or post-1931 scale respectively, shall be treated as selection posts promotion to which shall be based on merits with due regard to seniority. Note :-In passing over a person for inefficiency as well promotion for a selection post, due weight shall be given to his previous record of service and seniority should be disregarded only when the junior official promoted is of outstanding merit as compared with his seniors." Thus, the criterion for promotion to a selection post is merit with due regard to seniority. The quantum of due regard to seniority has been explained in the Note. Seniority can be disregarded only if it is found the a junior is of outstanding merit as compared to his senior; and for this purpose the previous record of service has not only to he considered but due weight should he given to it. 5. Properly construed the criterion is that seniority is to prevail if the junior is not of outstanding merit as compared to the senior. The Note provides this special Meaning to the term merit used in Rule 20 (3). The term merit has to be understood in this special sense as outstanding merit, comparatively. Of course, while judging the merit of two, the factors like character, integrity, devotion to duty, knowledge of rules and regulations, dealings etc. are all relevant. The Note provides this special Meaning to the term merit used in Rule 20 (3). The term merit has to be understood in this special sense as outstanding merit, comparatively. Of course, while judging the merit of two, the factors like character, integrity, devotion to duty, knowledge of rules and regulations, dealings etc. are all relevant. The note aforesaid emphasises that due weight shall be given to the previous record of service. These various attributes of an employee have to be gathered from the previous record of service, and it is primarily from that record the it has to be seen whether the junior is of an outstanding merit compared to his senior. 6. It is evident that if the record of service of two officials is of the same category then, merely because one is some what better than the other, will not make one of outstanding merit as compared with the other. There should be such difference that one can say that though the junior is of outstanding merit the senior is not. The senior is at best above average or less. 7. The District Judge held that the entries in the character roll of Satya Deo Singh were found to be better than of Shr Hari Mohan Lal. Satya Deo Singh had go two awards for his meritorious work while Hari Mohan Lal had got only one. Satya Deo Singh was more competent than Hari Mohan Lal and was of outstanding merit. 8. The finding that the previous record of service of Satya, Deo Singh was better than that of Hari Mohan Lal is not enough to satisfy the requirements of the Rule. Hari Mohan Lal was much senior to Satya Deo Singh. His seniority could not he disregarded simply because the character roll of Satya Deo Singh was better. The fact that one received 2 meritorious awards while the other received only one, does not mean that the first is of outstanding merit as compared to the other. The difference is only of degree and not of kind. The Note of Rule 20 (3) emphasises that the difference between the two must be of a category, that is, the junior is found of outstanding merit while the senior is not. The District Judge does not find that the character Roll of Hari Mohan Lal was no of outstanding merit. The Note of Rule 20 (3) emphasises that the difference between the two must be of a category, that is, the junior is found of outstanding merit while the senior is not. The District Judge does not find that the character Roll of Hari Mohan Lal was no of outstanding merit. The Administrative Judge in his order has held that a perusal of the character roll of the two persons shows the both were of outstanding merit. We have carefully perused the character rolls of both of them and we are in entire agreement with the view taken by the Administrative Judge. In this view it cannot be said that the District Judge applied the correct criterion for making the selection. 9. The District Judge has mentioned in his order that Hari Mohan Lal was the senior-most official in the grade. He was, by Government order dated 15th December, 1967 functioning as a permanent Munsarim Reader of the Court of the Ist Additional District fudge with effect from 1-4-1967. The District Judge held that by an order dated 20th October 1967 Satya Deo Singh was appointed as Chief Reader of the Court of District Judge. Hari, Mohan Lal was not selected either because he declined to work on that post and shirked the responsibility or the District Judge did not consider him to be competent enough to take him as Chief Reader. This finding has been established to be erroneous. The order dated 20th October, 1967 shows that out of 28 eligible candidates only 13 officials had applied for the post of Chief Reader. Hari Mohan Lal was not one of them. There was hence no question of the District Judge not considering him to be competent enough for appointment as Chief Reader. The case of Hari Mohan is that he was already working as Munsarim Reader which carried the same scale of pay as the post of Chief Reader. He was hence not interested in the post of Chief Reader. That is why he did no apply for selection to the post. The fact that he was working in the same grade has not been disputed. The order of the District Judge shows that he was not one of the applicants for the post of Chief Reader. He was hence not interested in the post of Chief Reader. That is why he did no apply for selection to the post. The fact that he was working in the same grade has not been disputed. The order of the District Judge shows that he was not one of the applicants for the post of Chief Reader. The inferences that Hari Mohan Lal either shirked the responsibility or that the District Judge did not consider him to be competent enough to take him as Chief Reader are not supported by any evidence or material and as such vitiate the order of the District Judge. 10. The second finding of the District Judge against Hari Mohan Lal was that he had a chance recently to work as Sadar Munsarim in a leave vacancy. His work as a Sadar Munsarim was not found so satisfactory as it ought to be. It is not disputed that Hari Mohan Lal aced as Sadar Munsarim in a leave vacancy only for one week. The Government order dated December 5, 195 provides that no assessment of an official work is to be made unless his work has been watched, for at least three months. The District Judge was in error in taking into consideration the performance of Hari Mohan Lal on the post of Sadar Munsarim only for a week. This finding discloses that the District judge took into consideration an irrelevant matter. 11. The third point emphasised by the District Judge was that Hari Mohan had no administrative experience and his knowledge of rules, circulars etc. was not up to the mark. The District Judge also observed that on the other hand Satya Deo Singh had been working as Chief Reader to that Court for more than three years and was given preference over Hari Mohan Lal by his predecessors in office to work as a permanent hand. His work has been excellent and he has good knowledge of General Rules (Civil) and Criminal). Financial rules, Circulars and general letters issued by the High Court. The District Judge's opinion about Satya Deo Singh was based on his personal knowledge, because he had worked as his reader for several years. But there is no suggestion that Hari Mohan Lal had ever worked in the court of the District Judge. Financial rules, Circulars and general letters issued by the High Court. The District Judge's opinion about Satya Deo Singh was based on his personal knowledge, because he had worked as his reader for several years. But there is no suggestion that Hari Mohan Lal had ever worked in the court of the District Judge. In his order he does not say that his opinion the experience, about knowledge of rules etc. was based upon his personal knowledge. 12. Under Rule 20 (3) the record of service is the principal source for forming an opinion about the merit of an official. A perusal of the character roll of Hari Mohan Lal does not show that the lacks administrative experience or knowledge of rules etc. On the other hand the entry of 1967 in his character roll shows that he is an excellent reader, well conversant with the High Court and Civil Court Rules. The other entries like `very outstanding reader in the past I have had', or `most efficient I have come across so far in my service', or that `he is thoroughly dependable and is always well prepared with files', or `he is very efficient, hardworking and thorough' coupled with the fact that he was given a reward by the High Court for outstanding and meritorious work do not sustain the view that he had no administrative experience or that his knowledge of rules and circulars etc. was not up to the mark. This finding also appears to be based on no evidence or material. 13. Thus, it is evidence that the District Judge did not apply the correct criterion. He took into consideration incorrect and irrelevant facts. The District Judge took into consideration matters which were trivial compared to the outstanding character roll and which were, as seen above, no true or correct. The Hon'ble the Administrative Judge was, in our opinion, justified in setting aside the order of the District Judge. 14. In the result the appeal succeeds end is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed with costs.