The main legal point established is that delay in filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) should be considered in context, and disproportionate disciplinary actions should be reviewed.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The melting glacier, flowing waters whereof have channelized into the three streams i.e. the three captioned writ petitions, could be said to be : W.P.(C) No.8218/2002, W.P. (C) No.8784/2003, W.P.(C) No.619/2003 and W.P.(C) No.620/2003 filed by Ayurvedic/Unani doctors on a common issue: Whether the previous service rendered by them on contract basis on being appointed after process of regular selection including consultation with Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as UPSC) was followed, could be regularized in service in view of the amended Recruitment Rules. The writ petitions were filed when, at the asking of the User Department, UPSC issued an advertisement inviting applications for eligible candidates to be appointed as Ayurvedic/Unani doctors and notified that the last date by which the applications could be filed was August 11, 2005. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the four writ petitions by a common order dated August 11, 2005, holding that no direction could be issued to give regular appointment to the writ petitioners who were working as doctors on a contract basis but since some of them had rendered 7 years service, they would be entitled to age relaxation since the Recruitment Rules permitted age to be relaxed for those who were in Government service. It was observed that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of contract service rendered, in that, in the selection process weightage would be given to said fact. Lastly, if contract appointment was made in the future, petitioners would be given preference. Since the last date by which applications could be submitted by eligible candidates was August 11, 2005, the date of the decision, it was directed that the writ petitioners may be allowed to submit their applications by August 18, 2005.

2. All writ petitioners litigating at that stage, except one named Dr.Permista Sharma, submitted their applications by August 11, 2005. Dr.Permista Sharma submitted her application on August 18, 2005.

3. At the departmental level, in consultation with the User Department, the matter was processed to take a decision whether to abide by the decision of the Division Bench dated August 11, 2005 or challenged the same before the Supreme Court. On September 20, 2005, the Joint Secretary in the UPSC, Sh. Ved Prakash, penned a note that the decision dated August 11, 2005 needs to be challenged before the Supreme Court, and for which he penned the reason for the challenge. Since the decision had to be by UPSC, routing through the Secretary of the Commission i.e. UPSC, the file was placed before the Commission comprising the Hon’ble Chairman and two Members, who took a decision on September 29, 2005 that the decision dated August 11, 2005 be challenged and for which UPSC also made a reference to a precedent case of one Dr. Jamuna Karupp, where similar directions issued were challenged before the Supreme Court and matter awaited decision before the Supreme Court.

4. At that time, Shri Amarjeet Singh, the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No.6559/2012 and the first respondent in W.P.(C) No.1648/2012, was working as an Under Secretary (Special Cell) in the Recruitment Branch of the UPSC and during the period from January 2005 to January 2006, was entrusted with the duties of recruitment tests conducted by UPSC as also defending court cases pertaining to their recruitment tests conducted by the UPSC. Tarsem Lal, the respondent in W.P.(C) No.1651/2012, was working during the same period as the Deputy Secretary in the UPSC and was the immediate superior officer of Amarjeet Singh; he too, as a part of his duties was associated with the recruitment tests conducted by UPSC as also defending court cases pertaining thereto.

5. The file containing the note dated September 20, 2005 penned by the Joint Secretary of UPSC, together with the decision dated September 29, 2005 taken by UPSC, meandering through the maze in UPSC reached the ta