1. Seniority dispute between temporary and regularly selected doctors in U.P. Provincial Medical Services. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 2353
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha, CJI., R.C. Lahoti, N. Santosh Hegde, Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Chandra Prakash - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 43 of 1998 with W.P. Nos. 237, 220, 276, 532, 539 and 547 of 1998, W.P. Nos. 176, 229 and 299 of 1999 and I.A. Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to 24
Decided On : 04-04-2002
Advocate Appeared:
C.S. Naidyanathan, Ranjit Kumar, V.A. Mohta, Subodh Markandeya, P.B. Menon, Dr. J.N. Dubey, P.S. Mishra, A. Sharan, Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocates, M.C. Dhingra, Vinod Shukla, Rajeev Sharma, Varun Goswami, Rajeev Sharma, Mohd. Taiyab Khan, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, K.K. Mohan, Mohan Babu Agarwal, Kamalendra Misra, Ms. Feroza Bano, Ms. Chitra Markandaya, R.C. Verma, Ashok K. Srivastava, Puneet Kumar Saxena, Ms. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Anurag Dubey, C.D. Singh, S. Chandra Shekhar, Dr. I.P. Singh, Samir Ali Khan, Amit Kumar, Praveen Swarup, S.K. Verma, Prashant Choudhary, Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Rajiv K. Garg, Abhishek Soni, N.S. Gahlat, Prakash Singh, Pramod Swarup, Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Arvind Kr. Shukla, Arvind Kumar Sahu, Rashid Saeed, Irshad Ahmed, Parthapratim Chaudhuri, Sanjeev Bansal, K.S. Rana, R.K. Bansal, Shrish Kumar Misra, Viswajit Singh, Prashant Kumar, Joseph Pookkatt, Prasenjit Keswani, Ms. Bela Maheswari, E.C. Vidya Sagar, Jeevan Singh and K.K. Mohan, Advocates.
C.S. Naidyanathan, Ranjit Kumar, V.A. Mohta, Subodh Markandeya, P.B. Menon, Dr. J.N. Dubey, P.S. Mishra, A. Sharan, Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocates, M.C. Dhingra, Vinod Shukla, Rajeev Sharma, Varun Goswami, Rajeev Sharma, Mohd. Taiyab Khan, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, K.K. Mohan, Mohan Babu Agarwal, Kamalendra Misra, Ms. Feroza Bano, Ms. Chitra Markandaya, R.C. Verma, Ashok K. Srivastava, Puneet Kumar Saxena, Ms. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Anurag Dubey, C.D. Singh, S. Chandra Shekhar, Dr. I.P. Singh, Samir Ali Khan, Amit Kumar, Praveen Swarup, S.K. Verma, Prashant Choudhary, Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Rajiv K. Garg, Abhishek Soni, N.S. Gahlat, Prakash Singh, Pramod Swarup, Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Arvind Kr. Shukla, Arvind Kumar Sahu, Rashid Saeed, Irshad Ahmed, Parthapratim Chaudhuri, Sanjeev Bansal, K.S. Rana, R.K. Bansal, Shrish Kumar Misra, Viswajit Singh, Prashant Kumar, Joseph Pookkatt, Prasenjit Keswani, Ms. Bela Maheswari, E.C. Vidya Sagar, Jeevan Singh and K.K. Mohan, Advocates.
A decision of a larger bench is binding on benches of the same or smaller strength. A smaller bench cannot overrule or differ from a larger bench; if it finds the larger bench's decision incorrect, it must refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Doctrine of Binding Precedents - Statement of law by a Division Bench is binding on another Division Bench of the same or smaller number of Judges to promote consistency and certainty in the development of law (Paras 21, 23).
(B) Judicial Discipline - A Bench of lesser strength cannot overrule or differ from a decision rendered earlier by a Bench of larger strength; if a smaller Bench concludes that an earlier judgment of a larger Bench is incorrect, the proper course is to refer the matter to a Bench of equal or larger strength (Paras 22, 23).
Facts of the case:
Appointments were made on a temporary basis in consultation with a service commission. Seniority disputes arose between these temporary appointees and those selected through the commission. A three-judge bench of the court had previously upheld that temporary appointees were entitled to seniority from the date of initial appointment. Subsequently, a two-judge bench of the court took a contrary view, holding that ad hoc appointments made de hors the rules do not confer seniority, and such rights are acquired only from the date of regular appointment.
Findings of Court:
The two-judge bench took a view directly conflicting with the law declared by the three-judge bench. Under the principles of judicial discipline and binding precedent, a smaller bench cannot vary or alter a law declared by a larger bench without following the proper referral process.
Issues: Whether there exists a conflict between the judgments of a three-judge bench and a two-judge bench regarding the seniority of temporary employees, and the legal effect of such a conflict under the doctrine of binding precedents.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial consistency is paramount for confidence in the legal system. A pronouncement of law by a larger bench is binding on a bench of the same or smaller strength. Because the two-judge bench's findings contradicted the decision of the three-judge bench, those findings did not reflect the correct declaration of law.
Result: Judgments delivered by the two-judge bench were held not to reflect the correct declaration of law and the petitions were directed to be listed for disposal before a bench of three judges.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Writ petitioners argued a 3-judge bench decision bound the court; respondents argued no conflict existed between the two bench decisions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. The 2-judge bench took a conflicting view from the 3-judge bench on temporary doctors' seniority counting from initial appointment. (Para 17 , 18 )
4. A smaller or coordinate bench cannot overrule a larger bench's decision; the later conflicting judgment does not lay down correct law. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
5. Held the 2-judge bench judgment in conflict with the 3-judge bench; directed writ petitions be placed before a 3-judge bench for disposal. (Para 25 , 27 )
6. What is the doctrine of binding precedent regarding bench strength?
A pronouncement by a division bench is binding on another division bench of the same or lesser number of judges. A smaller bench cannot overrule a larger bench. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
7. What is the proper course when a bench disagrees with a larger bench's decision?
If a bench of two judges concludes a judgment of three judges is incorrect, it must refer the matter to a bench of three judges, not directly decide the issue. (Para 23 )
8. Can a coordinate bench take a view conflicting with an earlier larger bench judgment?
No. To promote consistency and certainty, a coordinate or smaller bench cannot take a view conflicting with a larger bench's earlier judgment. (Para 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 )
JUDGMENT :
N. Santosh Hegde, J.
A 3-Judge Bench of this Court by an order dated 17.8.2000, referred the above-noted writ petitions for consideration by a Bench of five Judges by the following order :
"We have heard learned Counsel. It appears that a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court has taken a view dissimilar to that taken by a Bench of three learned Judges. It appears, therefore, that these matters should be heard and disposed of by a Bench of five learned Judges and, to the extent possible, with expedition."
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows :-
In the U.P. Provincial Medical Services (PMS) for a considerable length of time, regular appointments were not made and with a view to meet the need for doctors, appointments were being made on a temporary basis but in consultation with the State Public Service Commission. These appointments were continued for decades together without any interruption. In 1979, the respondent-State purported to regularise the services of these temporary doctors by the promulgation of U.P. Regulation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Regularisation Rules'), and sought to give these appointees seniority only from the date of their such regularised appointment under the Rules.
3. In the meanwhile, in the year 1972 pursuant to the advertisements issued by the Public Service Commission, the said Commission made selections to fill the vacancies in the PMS and recommended the names of certain selectees. Such selections and recommendations seem to have been made in instalments between the year 1972 and 1979. These selections made by the Public Service Commission were originally not acceptable to the State Government but when they became acceptable because of certain judicial pronouncements or otherwise, the question of inter se seniority arose between the temporary doctors originally appointed and the doctors appointed through the Public Service Commission. It was the stand of the temporary doctors that they were appointed to permanent vacancies in consultation with the PSC and having continued for a considerable length of time in service, their original appointments ought to be deemed as regular, and they should be given seniority from the date of their initial appointments. This claim of the temporary doctors being rejected, three temporary doctors approached the Allahabad High Court in three separate writ petitions; Civil Misc. W.P. No. 20408/88 filed by Dr. H.C. Mathur was one such petition. The High Court of Allahabad clubbing the three petitions, by its order dated 26.4.1991, upheld the claim of the temporary doctors and held that their seniority should be counted from the date of their initial appointment in the PMS cadre and that they are also entitled to all the service benefits which are due to them after so fixing their seniority.
4. The State of U.P. selectively filed an SLP against the judgment of the High Court in W.P. No. 20408/88, that is in the case of Dr. H.C. Mathur. The said matter came up before this Court in SLP @ No. 13840/92 before a 3-Judge Bench of this Court which by its order dated 24.11.1992 held thus :-
"We have heard Mr. D.V. Sehgal, Senior Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. The respondent in this Special Leave Petition has served the State of U.P. for over 30 years, and he was regularised after he had put in more than 20 years of service. Relying upon the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, the State of U.P. declined to give him the benefit of 20 years of service towards seniority. The Allahabad High Court allowed this Writ Petition and granted him the benefit of the whole of the period towards seniority. We see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein. Special Leave Petition is dismissed."
5. Thus, th
