2014 Supreme(SC) 624

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, M. Y. EQBAL, JJ.
VIRESHWAR SINGH & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8414-8415 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31023-31024 of 2011)
Decided On : 02-09-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Where an appointment is required to be made on recommendation of PSC, appointments made on ad hoc basis can be regularized from the date of recommendation of the PSC only.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Regularisation – Phase I and Phase II doctors appointed on same terms and conditions and in same manner – Phase I doctors regularized from the date of recommendation of UPSC – Phase II doctors regularised from date of initial appointment – Discrimination – Not permissible. (Para 14)

       (b) Service law – Regularisation – General Duty Medical Officers – Required to be appointed on recommendation of UPSC – Appointed on ad hoc basis and appointment extended from time to time – UPSC recommending at a later date – Services can be regularised from the date of recommendation only. (Para 14, 19)

       (1998) 5 SCC 293 – Relied upon

       (1990) 2 SCC 715; (1993) 3 SCC 371; (1986) 2 SCC 157; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       Between 1982 and 1986 (Phase-I) 82 General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) were appointed on ad hoc basis for an initial term of six months which was subsequently extended from time to time. In Phase-II, between 1986-1989, another 69 number of GDMOs were appointed on ad hoc basis on terms similar to the appointments made in Phase-I. Both sets of appointments were made on the basis of a selection held by a Specially Constituted Selection Committee and not UPSC as required.

       The cases of the GDMOs appointed on ad hoc basis in Phase-I were referred to the UPSC for its recommendations for the purpose of regularization. The UPSC approved 63 cases while holding 10 candidates to be unfit for regularization. The recommendations of the UPSC were communicated to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 27.06.1991. Accordingly, the Municipal Corporation regularized the services of the 63 GDMOs recommended by the UPSC with effect from the date of recommendation. Aggrieved by their regularization with effect from the date of the recommendation of the UPSC, the GDMOs appointed in the Phase-I approached the Supreme Court claiming regularization from the date of their initial appointments.

       While the aforesaid writ petition was pending, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi sent the cases of the GDMOs appointed in Phase-II to the UPSC for its recommendations for regularization of the incumbents. The UPSC refused to consider any of the cases on the ground that the 10 GDMOs appointed in Phase-I, who were found by it to be unfit, had not been dismissed from service. This had led the GDMOs appointed in Phase-II to file a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

       The writ petition filed by the Phase-I GDMOs before the Supreme Court was decided holding that their regularization with effect from the date of recommendation of the UPSC was validly made and they were not entitled to such regularization from the dates of their initial appointments.

       The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Phase-II GDMOs by directing the UPSC to consider their cases for regularization from the dates of their initial appointments. The UPSC therefore recommended regularization of the said GDMOs from the dates of their initial appointments.

       There being an apparent conflict with regard to regularization of the GDMOs appointed in Phase-I and Phase-II, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi decided to regularize the services of both sets of GDMOs with effect from the date of their initial appointments.

       The said Resolution and the formal Order were challenged by the regularly appointed GDMOs before the Delhi High Court. The writ petition filed was, however, withdrawn and instead the order passed by the Delhi High Court in respect of Phase II GDMOs were challenged in a Letters Patent Appeal. At this stage the Municipal Corporation of Delhi issued another Order dated 15.06.2007 and a Corrigendum dated 18.06.2007 to the effect that the regularization of both sets of GDMOs would be effective from the date(s) of communication of the recommendation of the UPSC. The said action of the Municipal Corporation was challenged in a writ petition (Writ Petition (C) No. 4619/2007) before the Delhi High Court by the present appellants. This petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Tribunal held that the Resolution dated 17.01.2000 with regard to regularization of GDMOs appointed in both phases from the dates of their initial appointments was contrary to the decision of this Court in Dr. Anuradha Bodi (supra). Accordingly, while the Resolution dated 17.01.2000 was quashed, the subsequent Order of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi dated 15.06.2007 was upheld. The aforesaid order has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Any departure from the views expressed and conclusions reached in Dr. Anuradha Bodi (supra) will not be necessary or justified.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.