( 1 ) REPLACING an officer who has not been selected by another who has been selected by the Selection Committee is understandable and accords with principle and policy. But to replace an official who has acquired 5 years experience but has not been successful at the selection by a fresh recruit who has not yet been selected so far smacks of irrationality arbitrariness and caprice which are frowned upon by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or India. Such is the proposition canvassed by two Assistant Medical Officers employed by the Railway Administration who have instituted these two allied petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising identical questions on similar facts.

( 2 ) THE facts which are not in dispute in both the petitions are as under:-THE petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1871/77 is a medical graduate holding a Degree of M. B. B. S. He was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer Class II on June 22 1972 as per order at Annexure I dated 9/13th June 1972. Initially the appointment was for a period of six months. Thereafter it was extended from time to time. Ultimately as per order at Annexure II dated November 19 1977 the services of the petitioner along with 51 other Assistant Medical Officers similarly situated as him were extended unto 31st December 1977. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1872/77 is a medical graduate holding a degree of M. B. B S. He was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer Class II on 1st June 1973 as per order Annexure I dated 31st May 1073 Initially the appointment was for a period of six months. Thereafter it was extended from time to time. Ultimately as per order at Annexure II dated 15th November 1977 the services of the petitioner along with 51 other Assistant Medical Officers similarly situated as him were extended upto 31st December 1977. It was in terms mentioned in the said order that their appointment was being made on ad hoc basis for further periods as shown against their names or till they are replaced by U. P. S. C. candidates whichever is earlier subject to the condition that their services are liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason during the extended period. Though the services of 50 Assistant Medical Officers were extended along with those of the petitioners upto 31 December 1977 the petitioners only were selected for being served with an order of termination as per Annexure B dated December 9 1977 Thereupon the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as stated here in above.

( 3 ) WHAT is obvious need not be stressed. Neither logic nor principle can justify replacement of one unselected person by another. Nor fair play or public interest or expediency can come to the rescue. What public good is served when a tried and tested Medical Officer who has not been found wanting in any respect for 5 years or more is Replaced by a fresh recruit who has yet to be tried and tested and has yet to gain experience ? And which is the principal to which obeisance is made ? A search for a rational justification leads one to a blind alley. No further test is necessary to uphold the charge of arbitrariness for the services of a public servant even if appointed on an ad hoc basis cannot depend on the whim or caprice of the appointing authority. Discrimination can be easily practiced and practiced with impunity if such a situation were to be countenanced. Counsel for the Railway Administration is unable to show even today in July 1980 3 years after the impugned order of termination and 3 years after the institution of these petitions that any doctors selected by public Service Commission are available even now to replace the doctors who have not been successful at the selections. Will they go on replacing unselected doctors by unselected doctors every three years ? They may do so on one occasion in respect of one lot or some of them. They may no