2002 Supreme(SC) 2353
S. P. BHARUCHA, R. C. LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Chandra Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
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.
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 Regul
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
