IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court was not right in giving direction for regularisation of the respondent-medical officers in appellant-Corporation w.e.f. 1.4.1986. The only direction that can be given in the matter of regularisation is that the respondent-Medical Officers should be considered by a duly constituted Selection Committee as per the Rules for the purpose of regular appointment on the post of medical officer and the appellant-Corporation should constitute a Selection Committee for that purpose.

Headnote:Service matter-Question of regularisation of respondent-Medical Officers in the appellant-Corporation-Direction given by High Court in Writ Petition regarding regularisation of respondents-Medical Officers w.e.f. 1-4-1986-Whether correct ? (No) (Para 10)-But direction to pay regular pay scale w.e.f. 1-4-1986 to respondent-medical officers is not to be interfered with (Para 12)-Appeal accordingly allowed. (Para 13)
Held : We are unable to endorse the direction given by the High Court regarding regularisation of the respondents-medical officers with effect from April 1, 1986. The process of regularisation involves regular appointment which can be done only in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Having regard to the rules which have been made by the appellant-corporation, regular appointment on the post of medical officer can only be made after the duly constituted Selection Committee has found the person suitable for such appointment. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao, though he had been working since 1976, was considered by the Selection Committee for regular appointment in the year 1981 and was not found suitable for such regular appointment. Dr. J. Sanjeeva Kumar and Dr. S. Prasada Rao were never considered by the Selection Committee for regular appointment. The fact that no regular selection has been made after their appointment on ad hoc basis does not mean that they are entitled to be regularised with effect from April 1, 1986. In view of the Rules prescribed by the appellant-corporation, regularisation of the respondent-medical officers on the post of medical officer can be made only after they are considered and found suitable for such appointment by a duly constituted Selection Committee. As a result of the direction for regularisation given by the High Court, the requirement in the Rules regarding selection by a Selection Committee for the purpose of regular appointment on the post of medical officer has been dispensed with. This, in our opinion, was impermissible. (Para 10)
The appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent that the direction given by the High Court for regularisation of the respondent-medical officers with effect from April 1, 1986 is set aside. The appellant-corporation is directed to constitute a Selection Committee in accordance with the relevant Rules for considering the matter of regularisation of the respondent-medical officers on the post of medical officer. The said Selection Committee shall consider the claim of the respondent-medical officers for such regularisation by applying the criteria laid down for appointment of medical officers on regular basis and it shall also take into account the record of performance of the respondent-medical officers while they were working on ad hoc basis with the appellant-corporation. In case, the respondent-medical officers are found to have crossed the age bar for regular appointment a relaxation should be made in that regard to enable them to be considered for regularisation. This process of selection by the Selection Committee for the purpose of regularisation of the respondent-medical officers shall be undertaken and completed within a period of three months. No orders as to costs. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

S.C. Agrawal, J.-These appeals raise common questions relating to regularisation of three medical officers (respondents herein) working with the Hindustan Shipyard Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-corporation ).

2. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao obtained the M.B.B.S. degree in 1975 and he was appointed as a medical officer in the appellant-corporation on October 29, 1976 on an honorarium of Rs. 600/- per month to work in the dispensary in the colony/first aid centre in the yard. The said appointment was continued till February 27, 1985 with artificial breaks of one day after each appointment for 89 days. During this period a selection was made for regular appointment on two posts of medical officer in 1980-81. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao was not considered eligible for such selection on the view that for the purpose of eligibility the applicant should have obtained the degree in medicine by 1974 and Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao had obtained his medical degree in the year 1975. He filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 2058 of 1981) in the Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein he sought a writ or directing declaring that he was entitled for absorption into the post of medical officer in the appellant-corporation. In the said writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-corporation gave an undertaking before the Court that Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao would be treated as eligible for selection and he was called for interview on March 12, 1981 but he was not selected and he continued to work on ad hoc basis. The last appointment given to Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao was on December 4, 1984 for the period December 5, 1984 to February 27, 1985. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao fell ill and applied for leave from March 1, 1985 but he was informed on June 6, 1985 that his appointment was an ad hoc appointment which expired on February 27, 1985 and, therefore, the question of sanctioning leave after February 27, 1985 did not arise. Feeling aggrieved by the termination of his services with effect from February 27, 1985, Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 9844 of 1985) in the Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein he sought a declaration that the order dated June 6, 1985 terminating his services with effect from February 27, 1985 was arbitrary and illegal and also sought a declaration that he should be deemed to be continuing in service of the appellant-corporation continuously. Both the Writ Petitions (W.P. No. 2058 of 1981 and W.P. No. 9844 of 1985) were disposed of by a learned single Judge of the High Court (Anjaneyulu J.) by judgment dated February 28, 1986. Allowing W.P. No. 9844 of 1985 and quashing the order dated June 6, 1985, the learned single Judge held that the said order effectively dispensing with the services of Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao with effect from March 1, 1985 was extremely arbitrary and unreasonable and was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The appellant-corporation was directed to reinstate Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao forthwith and consider him for appointment on regular basis at the earliest. The appellant-corporation was also directed to put Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao on a reasonable scale of pay. In view of the orders passed in W.P. No. 9844 of 1985, the learned single Judge did not consider necessary to pass further orders in W.P. No. 2058 of 1981. The appellant-corporation filed W.A. No. 281 of 1986 and W.A. No. 282 of 1986 against the said decision of the learned single Judge in these two writ petitions.

3. While the said appeals were pending, Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao filed two writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 4337 of 1989 and 585 of 1989). In writ petition No. 4337 of 1989, Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao claimed seniority in the category of medical officers, time scale of pay on par with regular medical officers and other attendant benefits like employer s share of contributory fund, ex-gratia amounts etc. In writ petition No. 585 of 1989, Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao claimed allotment of residential quarter and also allowance at the rate of Rs. 40

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 226

Cases Referred (2)