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 Regularisation Rules'), and sought to give these appointees seniority only from the date of their such regularised appointment under the Rules.

3. In the meanwhile, in the year 1972 pursuant to the advertisements issued by the Public Service Commission, the said Commission made selections to fill the vacancies in the PMS and recommended the names of certain selectees. Such selections and recommendations seem to have been made in instalments between the year 1972 and 1979. These selections made by the Public Service Commission were originally not acceptable to the State Government but when they became acceptable because of certain judicial pronouncements or otherwise, the question of inter se seniority arose between the temporary doctors originally appointed and the doctors appointed through the Public Service Commission. It was the stand of the temporary doctors that they were appointed to permanent vacancies in consultation with the PSC and having continued for a considerable length of time in service, their original appointments ought to be deemed as regular, and they should be given seniority from the date of their initial appointments. This claim of the temporary doctors being rejected, three temporary doctors approached the Allahabad High Court in three separate writ petitions; Civil Misc. W.P. No. 20408/88 filed by Dr. H.C. Mathur was one such petition. The High Court of Allahabad clubbing the three petitions, by its order dated 26.4.1991, upheld the claim of the temporary doctors and held that their seniority should be counted from the date of their initial appointment in the PMS cadre and that they are also entitled to all the service benefits which are due to them after so fixing their seniority.

4. The State of U.P. selectively filed an SLP against the judgment of the High Court in W.P. No. 20408/88, that is in the case of Dr. H.C. Mathur. The said matter came up before this Court in SLP @ No. 13840/92 before a 3-Judge Bench of this Court which by its order dated 24.11.1992 held thus :-

"We have heard Mr. D.V. Sehgal, Senior Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. The respondent in this Special Leave Petition has served the State of U.P. for over 30 years, and he was regularised after he had put in more than 20 years of service. Relying upon the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, the State of U.P. declined to give him the benefit of 20 years of service towards seniority. The Allahabad High Court allowed this Writ Petition and granted him the benefit of the whole of the period towards seniority. We see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein. Special Leave Petition is dismissed."

5. Thus, th