Back
Holds '' Cannot Violate Equality in Public Employment
In a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional mandate of equality in public employment, the 's has held that the , as a , cannot deny to similarly situated . The judgment, delivered by Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty, upheld a order directing of a medical officer from the date of his initial ad hoc appointment, rejecting the government's argument that earlier orders were strictly and could not be applied as .
Background: 25 Ad Hoc Doctors and the Quest for Equality
The case arose from the 's proposal to regularize the services of 25 doctors employed on an ad hoc basis between 1994 and 1997. After assessing their suitability through ACRs, bio-data, and personal interviews, the found all 25 doctors 'FIT' for regular appointment to the grade of Medical Officer in the General Duty Medical Officer Sub-cadre of the . On , the President accepted the UPSC's recommendation, and the 25 doctors were appointed with effect from .
One of the doctors, Dr. Sanjoy Bhattacharyya (the respondent), had earlier approached the seeking from the date of his initial appointment. The Tribunal allowed his claim, and subsequent challenges by the —including a writ petition and a Special Leave Petition before the —were dismissed. Dr. Bhattacharyya then filed a fresh application before the Tribunal seeking the same benefit, which the Tribunal granted, directing from the initial appointment date and consequential benefits within three months. Aggrieved, the filed the present writ petition.
The Union's Argument: Orders and
The petitioners, represented by counsel and , argued that the earlier Tribunal orders in favor of other doctors were strictly and could not be cited as for Dr. Bhattacharyya. They contended that since his initial appointment was ad hoc and not in compliance with the prescribed recruitment rules, the Tribunal erred in directing . Relying on a government memo dated (likely a typographical error for 2016 or 2025), they maintained that must be prospective to avoid upsetting and that deficiencies in ad hoc service could not be waived.
The Respondent's Stand: Consistent and Caveat
Counsel for the respondent, , , and , countered by pointing to a memo dated , issued by the . That memo explicitly stated that the of the 25 doctors was subject to the outcome of the pending petition, thereby acknowledging the link between their cases. The respondent argued that all 25 doctors were identically situated and that denying him the same benefit would violate the .
Court's Observations: No Distinction Among the 25 Doctors
The
closely examined the facts and observed that the memo dated
, established that the UPSC had recommended all 25 ad hoc doctors after a uniform suitability assessment. The court noted that no material had been produced to show that Dr. Bhattacharyya was not similarly situated with the other 24 doctors, who had already been regularized with effect from their respective initial appointment dates.
"The cases of all 25 doctors are closely connected,"
the Bench observed, emphasizing that the UPSC had issued a single recommendation for the entire group based on identical criteria.
Rejecting the Union's
argument, the court held that when facts and circumstances are identical, the
demands uniform treatment. The Bench declared that
"the
being a
cannot violate the fundamental concept of equality in law and
in the matters of employment."
The court found no justification for treating one doctor differently from the others.
Legal Analysis: Equality as a Non-Negotiable Principle in Public Employment
This judgment reinforces the under , which prohibits by the State. The court's emphasis on the "" doctrine—derived from earlier precedents—obliges the government to act fairly, reasonably, and without arbitrariness in all employment matters. By refusing to apply the limitation where the factual matrix was identical, the has sent a clear message that cannot override .
The decision also aligns with the well-settled principle that , when granted, should be effective from the date the employee started working, provided the initial engagement was not fraudulent or backdoor. Here, the UPSC's finding of 'FIT' for regular appointment validated the quality of the ad hoc service. , the court implicitly reasoned, is necessary to correct the injustice of a delayed process for which the employer, not the employee, is accountable.
Impact on Legal Practice and Public Service Jurisprudence
For legal practitioners specializing in service law, this judgment is a powerful tool to challenge discriminatory policies. It curbs the government's tendency to selectively apply favorable orders while denying the same benefit to other similarly placed employees. The ruling also clarifies that , as the largest public employer, cannot hide behind the shield when the underlying facts are identical.
The case is likely to influence pending litigation in other High Courts and Tribunals concerning in various departments. It underscores the need for the government to maintain consistent policies and to avoid piecemeal implementation of tribunal orders. Furthermore, the judgment may prompt the Central Government to revisit its approach to of in other ministries and services.
Conclusion: A Victory for
With the dismissal of the 's writ petition, Dr. Sanjoy Bhattacharyya will now receive and consequential benefits from the date of his initial ad hoc employment. The 's decision stands as a reaffirmation that the constitutional promise of equality cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience. As the court aptly noted, a must lead by example, not by exception.
The judgment, , is a significant addition to the jurisprudence on public employment and serves as a cautionary tale for government departments that attempt to carve out unequal treatment among employees who stand on the same footing.
