Ad Hoc Service Under Repealed Rules Cannot Be Regularized After Participating in Selection Under New Rules

The petitioners were appointed as Junior Medical Officers on an ad hoc basis under the 1985 Recruitment Rules.

In 2001, the Administration advertised 24 regular Medical Officer posts. The petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking regularization.

In 2004, the CAT directed the authorities to assess vacancies as of June 11, 1997, and consider the applicants under the 1984 Rules; unsuccessful candidates were allowed to continue in an ad hoc capacity.

After litigation reached the Supreme Court, the CAT order was finalized in 2012.

In 2013, the Administration identified 12 General category vacancies for 15 applicants. The UPSC conducted a merit-based selection, and the three petitioners were excluded as they ranked lowest.

The petitioners subsequently participated in a fresh 2016 recruitment process under the 1997 Rules and were appointed as Medical Officers.

They then filed new applications before the CAT seeking retrospective regularization from their original ad hoc appointment dates, which the CAT dismissed on grounds of res judicata and limitation.

1. Whether the petitioners' claim for regularization is barred by the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata given the 2004 CAT judgment.

2. Whether the challenge to the 2013 vacancy assessment is barred by the law of limitation.

3. Whether the UPSC exceeded its authority by creating a merit list instead of following seniority for regularization.

The Court applied the principle of Res Judicata and Issue Estoppel, which prevents parties from re-litigating issues already decided by a competent court.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding the limitation period for challenging administrative actions.

The Andaman and Nicobar Health Service Rules (1984 and 1997).

Precedent Jatinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab, which established that UPSC recommendations are generally directory.

Doctrine of Acquiescence and Waiver, noting that participation in a subsequent selection process precludes challenging the prior process.

The Court reasoned that the 2004 CAT judgment attained finality and specifically prescribed the method for regularization, limiting it to vacancies available as of June 11, 1997.

Because the petitioners were "unsuccessful" in that specific court-mandated process due to a lack of vacancies, they could not seek the same relief again.

The Court found that the UPSC's merit-based selection was a rational and transparent method to fill limited vacancies and did not violate the 1984 Rules.

Regarding limitation, the Court held that the petitioners were aware of their exclusion and the vacancy count when their colleagues were regularized in 2014; thus, challenging the 2013 vacancy count years later was untimely.

The Court noted that by participating in the 2016 recruitment under the 1997 Rules, the petitioners accepted a new service regime and could not "bridge" their previous ad hoc service for regularization across different recruitment rules.

The Court further held that the petitioners’ subsequent appointment under the 1997 Rules in 2016 operated as an estoppel against their claim for retrospective regularization under the old 1984 Rules.

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the CAT’s dismissal of the applications.

No order as to costs was made.