Title not extracted — [1988] 1 S.C.R. 335

DR. A.K. JAIN & ORS. ETC. ·ETC. A v.· UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

SEPTEMBER 24, 1987

B

Indian Railways Medical Department (Assistant Medical Officers Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1977: Rule 6--Zonal Railways-Ad hoc Assistant Medical Officers-Replacement/regularisation of--;Directions issued by Court.

1. Services of all doctors appointed as Assistant Medical Officers/ C Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on ad hoc basis upto 1.10.1984 shall be regularised in consultation with the Union Public Service Com- mission. The doctors so regularised shall be appointed as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers from the date from which they have been continuously working. [338C-D] D

2. The petitions of the Officers appointed suboequent to 1.10.1984 are dismissed. However, the Assistant Divisional Medical Officers who have been selected by the Union Public Service Commis- sion shall first be posted to the vacant posts available. H all those selected by UPSC cannot be accommodated they may be posted to the posts now held by the doctors appointed on ad hoc basis suboequent to E 1.10.1984. While making such postings the principle of 'last come, first

- }II' shall be obse"ed. The doctors so dlsplaced, if willing to serve in any other zone where there is a vacancy may be accommodated in. such vacancy on ad hoc basis. [338E-G I

3. All Assistant Medical Officers/Assistant Divisional Medical F Officers working on ad hoc basis shall be paid the same salary and allowances on the revised scale with effect from 1.1.1986. [338H; 339AI

4. No ad hoc Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional Medical Officer who may be working in the Railways shall be replaced G by any newly appointed Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional Medical Ofticer on ad hoc basis. l339BI S. H the ad hoc doctors appointed after 1.10.1984 apply for selection by the Union Public Service Commission necessary relau- tlon in age to the extent of the period of service rendered shall be granted. [339cJ H 335

p. 336 Copy page pinpoint

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 822 of A 1987 etc. etc.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution) India.

Gobind Mukhoty, P.P. Rao, M.C. Bhandare, Surya Kant, V. B Shekhar, M.A. Chinnaswamy, C.K. Sucharita, Ms. Malini Poduval, Raj Kumar Gupta, P.C. Kapur and S.S. Tewari for the Petitioners.

D.N. Dwivedi, R.B. Mishra, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Ms. A. Subhashini, Y.P. Rao, B.D. Sharma, Shrinath Singh and K.K. Gupta for the Respondents. c Supreme Court Editorial Note-Statement of Facts

The petitioners in their Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenged the action of the Respondents in terminating their services as 'ad-hoc' Assistant Medical Officers on the plea that D they were 'ad-hoc' appointees and replacing them by freshly recruited Assistant Divisional Medical Officers, and prayed for the issue of a direction to the Respondents to treat the appointments of the petition- ers as regular with effect from the dates of their respective appoint- ments as 'ad-hoc' Assistant Medical Officers and to assign them conse- quent seniority in the grades. E It was contended by the petitioners that they were appointed as 'ad-hoc-' Assistant Medical Officers (Class II) during the period August 1983 to July 1986 in the South-Eastern, North East Frontier and Northern Zones of the Indian Railways and had been officiating in the said grade for periods ranging upto four years. Although the initial - F appointments were for a period of six months, the respondents had extended their tenure from time to time. Instead of regularising the services of the petitioners and conferring the benefits of seniority, the respondents had threatened to terminate their services as and when the UPSC selected Assistant Divisional Medical Officers and they joined the service. In the South-Central Zone of the Railways, the G petitioners contended that the Respondents had in fact by an Order No. 450/86 dated 11.11.1986, terminated the services of eleven officiating 'ad-hoc' Assistant Medical officers as they had not availed of the three chances stated in their appointment order for selection through UPSC. It was alleged that neither the Indian Railways Medical Department (Assistant Medical Officers Class II) Recruitment Rules H 1977 nor the earlier Rules of 1967 provided for 'ad-hoc' appointment

A.K. JAIN v. U.0.1. 337

.~ of Assistant Medical Officers, and that the Respondents exercised the powers to relax the Rules conferred by Rule 8 of the 1967 Rules and Rule 6 of the 197TRulcs, as it was inevitable to prevent dislocation of medical services on the Railways and alleviation of hardship to the employees and their families.

These petitions were contested by the Respondent. In the counter-effidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it was con- tended that the petitioners belonged to the category of 'ad-hoc' doctors who were appointed by the General Managers of the con- cerned Zonal Railways under their powers, and not by the President of India, purely as a temporary measure for a specified period, that such 'ad-hoc' appointments became unavoidable in the Railways and were resorted to, to tide over temporary shortage of professional doctors c } and that these 'ad-hoc' doctors' tenures were extended for various periods from time to time. It was further contended that the recruit- ment of regular doctors on the Railways was done in the capacity of Assistant Divisional Medical Officer (Group 'A') in the scale of Rs. 700-1600 through the Union Public Service Commission as the D posts belonged to Group 'A' for which the appointing authority was the President of India. It was also submitted that the General Mana- gers of the Zonal Railways were empowered to recruit 'ad-hoc' doctors as Assistant Medical Officers Group 'B' in the scale of Rs.650-1200 -{ purely on 'ad-hoc' basis for a specified period to maintain the Railways Medical Service till replacement by Assistant Divisional Medical E Officers, selected through the UPSC.

- The Combined Medical Services Examination was introduced by the UPSC in the years 1977, and from 1977 to 1983 maximum age relaxation upto 40 years or even 50 years was granted from time to time to enable the satd.'ad-hoc' doctors on the Zonal Railways to avail F -{ themselves of the opportunity of appearing in the Combined Medical Services Examination. In addition, the UPSC held two Special Selec- tions based on interview only with sufficient relaxation in the years 1982 and 1985. In these two special selections held in 1982 and 1985, 100 and 67 'ad-hoc' doctors respectively of the Railways were selected and absorbed in the regular cadre. The petitioners who were still 'ad- G hoc' doctors in the Zonal Railways, were thus those doctors who either failed to appear in the Combined Medical Services Examination held ~ by the UPSC or after appearing had failed. Having failed to get reg- ularised in accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations for regular appointments, the petitioners services had to be terminated and as such there had been neither any arbitrary nor illegal action on H

p. 338 Copy page pinpoint

A the part of the respondents, nor any violation of the Fundamental '!<:- Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16.