Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
DR. A.K. JAIN & ORS. ETC.yETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/09/1987
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
SINGH, K.N. (J)
CITATION:
1988 SCR (1) 335 1987 SCC Supl. 497
JT 1987 (4) 445 1987 SCALE (2)1002
ACT:
Indian Railways Medical Department (Assistant Medical
officers Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1977: Rule 6-Zonal
Railways-Ad hoc Assistant Medical Officers-
Replacement/regularisation of-Directions issued by Court.
HEADNOTE:
1. Services of all doctors appointed as Assistant
Medical (Officers Assistant Divisional Medical officers on
ad hoc basis upto 1.10.1984 shall be regularised in
consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. The
doctors so regularised shall be appointed as Assistant
Divisional Medical officers from the date from which they
have been continuously working. [338C-D]
2. The petitions of the officers appointed subsequent
to 1.10.1984 are dismissed. However, the Assistant
Divisional Medical Offficers who have been selected by the
Union Public Service Commission shall first be posted to the
vacant posts available. If all those selected by UPSC cannot
be accommodated they may be posted to the posts now held by
the doctors appointed on ad hoc basis subsequent to
1.10.1984. While making such postings the principle of ’last
come, first go’ shall be observed. The doctors so displaced,
if willing to serve in any other zone where there is a
vacancy may be accommodated in such vacancy on ad hoc basis.
[338E-G]
3. All Assistant Medical Officers/Assistant Divisional
Medical Officers working on ad hoc basis shall be paid the
same salary and allowances on the revised scale with effect
from 1.1.1986. [338H; 339A]
4. No ad hoc Assistant Medical officer/Assistant
Divisional Medical officer who may be working in the
Railways shall be replaced by any newly appointed Assistant
Medical officer/Assistant Divisional Medical officer on ad
hoc basis. [333B]
5. If the ad hoc doctors appointed after 1.10.1984
apply for selection by the Union Public Service Commission
necessary relaxation in age to the extent of the period of
service rendered shall be granted. [339C]
336
^
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 822
of 1987 etc. etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution) India.
Gobind Mukhoty, P.P. Rao, M.C. Bhandare, Surya Kant, V.
Shekhar, M.A. Chinnaswamy, C.K. Sucharita, Ms. Malini
Poduval, Raj Kumar Gupta, P.C. Kapur and S.S. Tewari for the
Petitioners.
D.N. Dwivedi, R.B. Mishra, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Ms. A.
Subhashini, Y.P. Rao, B.D. Sharma, Shrinath Singh and K.K.
Gupta for the Respondents.
Supreme Court Editorial Note-Statement of Facts
The petitioners in their Writ Petitions under Article
32 of the Constitution challenged the action of the
Respondents in terminating their services as ’ad-hoc’
Assistant Medical officers on the plea that they were ’ad-
hoc’ appointees and replacing them by freshly recruited
Assistant Divisional Medical officers, and prayed for the
issue of a direction to the Respondents to treat the
appointments of the petitioners as regular with effect from
the dates of their respective appointments as ’ad-hoc’
Assistant Medical officers and to assign them consequent
seniority in the grades.
It was contended by the petitioners that they were
appointed as ’ad-hoc-" Assistant Medical officers (Class II)
during the period August 1983 to July 1986 in the South-
Eastern, North East Frontier and Northern Zones of the
Indian Railways and had been officiating in the said grade
for periods ranging upto four years. Although the initial
appointments were for a period af six months, the
respondents had extended their tenure from time to time.
Instead of regularising the services of the petitioners and
conferring the benefits of seniority, the respondents had
threatened to terminate their services as and when the UPSC
selected Assistant Divisional Medical officers and they
joined the service. In the South-Central Zone of the
Railways, the petitioners contended that the Respondents had
in fact by an order No. 450/86 dated 11.11.1986, terminated
the services of eleven officiating ’ad-hoc’ Assistant
Medical officers as they had not availed of the three
chances stated in their appointment order for selection
through UPSC. It was alleged that neither the Indian
Railways Medical Department (Assistant Medical officers
Class II) Recruitment Rules 1977 nor the earlier Rules of
1967 provided for ’ad-hoc’ appointment
337
Of Assistant Medical officers, and that the Respondents
exercised the powers, to relax the Rules conferred by Rule 8
of the 1967 Rules and Rule 6 of the 1977 Rules, as it was
inevitable to prevent dislocation of medical services on the
Railways and alleviation of hardship to the employees and
their families.
These petitions were contested by the Respondent. In
the counter-effidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India,
it was contended that the petitioners belonged to the
category of ’ad-hoc’ doctors who were appointed by the
General Managers of the concerned Zonal Railways under their
powers, and not by the President of India, purely as a
temporary measure for a specified period, that such ’ad-hoc’
appointments became unavoidable in the Railways and were
resorted to, to tide over temporary shortage of professional
doctors and that these ’ad-hoc’ doctors’ tenures were
extended for various periods from time to time. It was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
further contended that the recruitment of regular doctors on
the Railways was done in the capacity of Assistant
Divisional Medical officer (Group ’A’) in the scale of
Rs.700-1600 through the Union Public Service Commission as
the posts belonged to Group ’A’ for which the appointing
authority was the President of India. It was also submitted
that the General Managers of the Zonal Railways were
empowered to recruit ’ad-hoc’ doctors as Assistant Medical
officers Group ’B’ in the scale of Rs.650-1200 purely on
’ad-hoc’ basis for a specified period to maintain the
Railways Medical Service till replacement by Assistant
Divisional Medical officers, selected through the UPSC.
The Combined Medical Services Examination was
introduced by the UPSC in the years 1977, and from 1977 to
1983 maximum age relaxation upto 40 years or even SO years
was granted from time to time to enable the said ’ad-hoc’
doctors on the Zonal Railways to avail themselves of the
opportunity of appearing in the Combined Medical Services
Examination. In addition, the UPSC held two Special
Selections based on interview only with sufficient
relaxation in the years 1982 and 1985. In these two special
selections held in 1982 and 1985, 100 and 67 ’ad-hoc’
doctors respectively of the Railways were selected and
absorbed in the regular cadre. The petitioners who were
still ’ad-hoc’ doctors in the Zonal Railways, were thus
those doctors who either failed to appear in the Combined
Medical Services Examination held by the UPSC or after
appearing had failed. Having failed to get regularised in
accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations for
regular appointments, the petitioners services had to be
terminated and as such there had been neither any arbitrary
nor illegal action on
338
the part of the respondents, nor any violation of the
Fundamental A Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16.
The following order of the Court was delivered:
After hearing learned counsel for the parties at great
length having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances
of these cases we pass the following order in the above writ
petitions:
1. The services of all doctors appointed either, as
Assistant Medical officers or as Assistant Divisional
Medical officer on ad hoc basis upto 1.10.1984 shall be
regularised in consultation with the Union Public Service
Commission on the evaluation of their work and conduct on
the basis of their confidential reports in respect of the
period subsequent to 1. 10.1982. Such evaluation shall be
done by the Union Public Service Commission. The doctors so
regularised shall be appointed as Assistant Divisional
Medical officers with effect from the date from which they
have been continuously working as Assistant Medical
officer/Assistant Divisional Medical officer. The Railway
shall be at liberty to terminate the services of those who
are not so regularised. If the services of any of the
petitioners appointed prior to 1. 10.84 have been terminated
except on resignation or on disciplinary grounds, he shall
be also considered for regularisation and if found fit his
services shall be regularised as if there was no break in
the continuity of service but without any back wages.
2. The Petitions of the Assistant Medical
officer/Assistant Divisional Medical officers appointed
subsequent to 1.10.1984 are dismissed. But we however direct
that the Assistant Divisional Medical officers who may have
been now selected by the Union Public Service Commission
shall first be posted to the vacant posts available wherever
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
they may be. If all those selected by the U.P.S.C. cannot be
accommodated against the available vacant posts they may be
posted to the posts now held by the doctors appointed on ad
hoc basis subsequent to 1. 10.1984 and on such posting the
doctor holding the post on ad hoc basis shall vacate the
same. While making such postings the principle of ’last
come, first go’ shall be observed by the Railways on Zonal
basis. If any doctor who is displaced pursuant to the above
direction is wiling to serve in any other Zone where there
is a vacancy he may be accommodated on ad hoc basis in such
vacancy.
3. All Assistant Medical officers/Assistant Divisional
Medical officers working on ad hoc basis shall be paid the
same salary and
339
allowances as Assistant Divisional Medical officers on the
revised scale with effect from 1.1.1986. The arrears shall
be paid within four months.
4. No ad hoc Assistant Medical officer/Assistant
Divisional Medical officer who may be working in the
Railways shall be replaced by any newly appointed AMO/AMO on
ad hoc basis. Whenever there is need for the appointment of
any AMO/ADMO on ad hoc basis is any Zone the existing ad hoc
AMO/ADMOs who are likely to be replaced by regularly
appointed candidates shall be given preference.
5. If the ad hoc doctors appointed after 1.10.1984
apply for selection by the Union Public Service Commission
the Union of India and the Railways Department shall grant
relaxation in age, to the extent of the period of service
rendered by them as ad hoc doctors in the Railways.
All the Writ Petitions are disposed of in the above
terms.
P.S.S. Petitions disposed of.
340