The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the MHS Rules, 1982, and its amendments in determining the regularisation and seniority of the petitioners.

Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra; CJ.

1. In this batch of cases, the petitioners challenge the order dated 2nd November, 2011 passed by the Joint Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Manipur regularising their ad-hoc appointment w.e.f. 03.09.2001 notionally for the purpose of pensionary and other service benefits but without seniority benefit.

2. The parties to the proceedings have been litigating for more than a decade on several issues. Several writ petitions have been filed in the Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench) as well as Supreme Court with regard to regularisation of the petitioners in service but the question involved in the present case is in relation to fixation of seniority.

3. The following facts are not in dispute:-

In pursuance of the State Government's Office Memorandum dated 8.2.1996, the Director of Health Services, Govt. of Manipur issued an advertisement on 28th February, 1996 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the posts of 59 Medical Officers and 18 Dental Surgeons on ad-hoc basis for a period of 6 months. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioners and several others submitted their respective applications. The Screening Committee selected the candidates including the petitioners for appointment to the above posts of Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons in MHS Grade-IV on ad-hoc basis for a period of 6 months or till the posts were filled up on regular basis whichever is earlier. Though initially the advertisement was made for appointment to the post of 59 Medical Officers and 18 Dental Surgeons, under Annexure A/4, 125 persons were appointed as Medical Officers in MHS Grade-IV on 11th March, 1996.

4. While the matter stood thus the State Government took a policy decision vide Office Memorandum dated 19.8.1998 for regularisation of the ad-hoc appointees to Class I and II direct recruits posts on 31.12.1998. On the same day, another Notification was issued by adding Regulation 21 to the MPSC (Exemption from Consultation) Regulation, 1972 thereby making it not necessary to consult the MPSC in regard to regularisation of the ad-hoc appointees who fulfil the requirements mentioned in the said Regulation. Since the Government failed in regularising the service of the petitioners and similarly placed other doctors who were appointed on ad-hoc basis, they filed writ applications in the High Court on 7.12.1998. Learned single Judge vide common order dated 7.12.1998 disposed of the writ applications vide Civil Rule No. 1222 of 1998 and Civil Rule No. 1226 of 1998 directing the Government respondents therein to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularisation in terms of the said Office Memorandum dated 19.8.1998 within a specified time. In compliance of the said order dated 7.12.1998 and on recommendation of the Screening Committee, ad-hoc appointment of the petitioners and several others were regularised with effect from 11.3.1998 vide Government order dated 21.12.1998.

Some unemployed doctors preferred 4 writ appeals being W.A. No. 178/98, W.A. No. 4/99, W.A. No. 8/99 and W.A. No. 9/99 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.12.1998 passed in the two writ applications. Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the writ appeals in a common order dated 1.3.1999 by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.12.1998 and also quashed the Government's regularisation order dated 21.12.1998. Division Bench held that the petitioners in the two writ applications had committed fraud by suppressing the earlier orders of the Court passed in various writ applications and writ appeals for no regularising ad-hoc services of the Medical Officers and Dental Surgeon and for making appointment of the Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons in accordance with the relevant Rules through the MPSC.

5. Challenging the above order passed in 4 writ appeals, the petitioners as well as State Government preferred as many as 14 SLPs in the Supreme Court of India.