2001 Supreme(Raj) 507

Rajasthan High Court
Honble ARUN MADAN & K.S. RATHORE, JJ.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Narendra Kumar Mangal and Others - Respondents
D.B. Civil Special (Writ) No 777 of 1995 & Ors. Writs,
Decided On : May 03, 2001

Headnote:Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, Rule 30, 31, 19, 8-A – Regularisation of service – Appointed on urgent temporary basis – Continued for more than three years – Claimed exemption from screening test and seniority from initial appointment – Held – Appointment made under Rule 30(1) can not be regularised until regular selection under Part IV of the Rules is faced through commission – Failure of the State Government to determine vacancy on yearly basis under Rule 8-A entitle petitioner to the benefit of exemption from screening test under discretionary provisions of Rule 19 in view of their past service performance – Seniority can be adjudged only upon regular selection under Rule 31. (Paras 19 to 21)

       HELD : Question of seniority will only arise upon the regular selection and in the cases of the present doctors (petitioners) who have admittedly not undergone process of regular selection under the Rules, 1962 before they approached this Court and it is only upon the decision of the learned Single Judge, and before which they had also applied for direct recruitment with a view to undergo process of regular selection through RPSC advertisement under challenge, that the RPSC has already permitted such doctors to appear in selection process for regular appointment though subject to final result of their appeals on or about 12.12.95 and their result have also been declared on 20.12.95. Above all, teh Apex Court in its order dated 5.6.95 in Dr. Surekha & Dr. Bhandaris cases (supra) categorically made it clear that only in the event of being selected regularly the seniority will have to be decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with relevant provisions of the Rules. Hence, we refrain from entering into this controversy as to the seniority of these doctors appointed under Rule 30 and who are petitioners in their writ petitions (supra). The seniority of persons or appointees under the Rules, 1962 is required to be adjudged and assigned only in consonance with provisions contained in Rule 31 of the Rules, 1962. This Court cannot go beyond or devise any separate system de hors the rules which, itself, would be against the Rules so also the mandate of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we leave the matter entirely to be examined by the appropriate authority under the Rules and in case of any grievance the aggrieved person may resort to recourse by approaching appropriate appellate forum if he is not assigned his desired seniority after regular selection and in consonance with the seniority rules. But no relief can either be granted in these writ appeals nor can be entertained by this Court at this stage, inasmuch as we may also make it clear that direction by the learned Single Judge being duly affirmed by us is not the process of regularisation of their temporary or adhoc appointment made under Rule 30, but allowing them to undergo process of regular selection through direct recruitment as provided for regular appointment under part IV of the Rules, 1962 without requiring and by exempting them to appear in the screening test. Hence, exemption from appearing in the screening test will not in any way give them right or benefit for adjudging seniority by deeming that their temporary services were regularised. The seniority is to be adjudged only upon regular selection but in consonance with and in the light of statutory rules, i.e. Rule 31 of the Rules, 1962 in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. (Para 21)