Judgement

PATTANAIK, J. :- Leave granted in S. L. P. (C) No. 18846/99.

2. The determination of inter se seniority between the two categories of doctors engaged by the Railway Administration is the subject-matter of dispute in these batch of cases. It would be necessary to state the facts in a greater detail in view of the chequard history of the case. Prior to 1986, normal recruit to the post of Assistant Medical Officers under the Railway Administration was being made through a process of selection by the Union Public Service Commission. There was no statutory rule framed for the purpose of recruitment. Government of India in the Ministry of Railway through the Railway Board had, however, permitted the General Managers to recruit Assistant Medical Officers in Class II on ad hoc basis for a period not exceeding six months and such power had been conferred in the public interest as the process of selection through Union Public Service Commission was taking some time. The ad hoc recruits, however, were advised to apply to Union Public Service Commission in response to the advertisement to be issued by the Commission for getting regular appointment. The administrative instructions dated 21st May, 1966, unequivocally indicated that the ad hoc appointees should be made known that their services would stand terminated as soon as candidates selected by the Commission become available. The aforesaid Government Order also provided that the ad hoc appointees could be retained beyond six months with prior approval of the Board. Some time in the year 1986 several such doctors having failed in their attempt to get selected through the Union Public Service Commission apprehended termination of their services, therefore, a batch of writ petitions were filed in this Court under Article 32, which stood disposed of by judgment dated 24th September, 1987, Dr. A. K. Jain v. Union of India, reported in 1987 Supp SCC 497. By the time these writ petitions were taken up for consideration a set of Recruitment Rules have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, called The Indian Railway Medical Department (Assistant Medical officers Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as "The Recruitment Rules"), and the said Rule never contemplated of any ad hoc appointment. Even under the provisions of the 1794 Railway Establishment Code, which governs the recruitment of the Group A service in the various departments of Railways, as indicated in Section 205, no ad hoc recruitment was contemplated, and as such, the ad hoc appointments were in exigencies of service to meet a particular contingency under the Administrative Orders of the Board. This Court disposed of the batch of cases with following directions :-

"(1) The services of all doctors appointed either as Assistant Medical Officers or as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on ad hoc basis up to October 1, 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 a period subsequent to October 1, 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 October 1, 1984 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 Officers/Assistant Divisional Medical Officers appointed subsequent to October 1, 1984 are d