Holding

The Court held that ad‑hoc appointed doctors shall be regularised in Group A from 1 January 1973 (or their original appointment date, whichever is later), placed on a separate seniority list, and promoted only to supernumerary posts, thereby protecting the seniority of regularly recruited doctors.

Summary

The petitioners, doctors appointed ad hoc to the Central Health Service between 1968 and 1977, sought regularisation in Group A with seniority based on their original appointment dates. The Union of India opposed this, fearing that regularising the ad‑hoc doctors would displace regularly recruited Group A doctors. The Court considered the competing interests and accepted a proposal that the ad‑hoc doctors be regularised from 1 January 1973 (or their original appointment date, whichever is later) and placed on a separate seniority list. Promotions for these doctors were to be made only to supernumerary posts created by the Government, ensuring no disturbance to the seniority of regular recruits. The petitioners and similarly situated interveners also agreed to relinquish any monetary claims up to 31 October 1991. The Court directed the Government to implement these directions by 31 March 1992 and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether ad‑hoc appointed doctors can be regularised without prejudice to the seniority and promotional prospects of regularly recruited doctors.
What mechanism of seniority and promotion should apply to the regularised ad‑hoc doctors.
Whether creation of supernumerary posts for the purpose of promotion is permissible.
Whether the petitioners must forgo monetary claims arising from revision of scales, regularisation or promotion.

Subjects

service lawregularisationseniority listsupernumerary postsCentral Health Servicead hoc appointmentpromotionjudicial directions

Judgment

DR. P.P.C. RAW ANI AND ORS. ETC. A
v:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 2.9, 1991

[S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] .B

Service Law:

Central Health Service~octors--Ad hoc appointees-Regularisation
of-Courts' directions for preparation a/separate seniority list and crea- . C
• tion of supernumerary posts opening promotional avenues to ad hoc ap-
pointees on par with regularly recruited doctors.

In Civil Appeal No.3519 of 1984, filed by the appellants, who
were appointed as doctors on ad hoc basis in. the Central Health
/ '
Service on various dates between 1968 and 1977, praying for regu- D
larisation of their services with reference to their original dates of ·
llppointments, this Court, by its judgment dated 9.4.1987 and subse-
quent orders, gave certain directions. Since the Union of India could
not implement the directions, the appellants filed the civil miscella-
neous petition for clarification of the earlier orders passed by this
Court ·ill the Civil Appeal. Certain other doctors who fall in the E
category of the appellants (ad hoc appointees) and who had not
earlier filed writ petition before the High Court, filed writ petitions
and intervention applications before this Court praying for the bene-
fits':~~ granted to the appellants.

\
It was contended by the Union of India that if regularisation F
was granted to all the appellants and the like categories of doctors,
the doctors regularly appointed in Group A may get relegated to
secondary position in view of the fact that the appellants were ap-
pointed much earlier on ad hoc basis. '

fhe regularly recruited doctors, not heard earlier, also filed G
intervention applications praying that any order of regularisation
of the appellants and the similarly situated doctors should ensure
that their inter~sts were not prejudiced.

The appellants and the other similarly situated doctors ex-
pressed their willingness to be considered for regular appointments H

109
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A only from 1.1.1973, this being the date on which the Group B and
Group A services were merged together by the Government of India.
They also agreed to give up monetary claims on account of revision
of scales, regularisation or promotion to which they would be enti-
tled till 31.10.1991 ..

B Disposing of the matters, this court,

HELD: 1. Each of the appellants will be treated as regularised
in Group A of the Central Health Service from 1.1.1973 or the date
of his first initial appointment in ·the service (though as an ad hoc
Group B doctor) whichever is later. [p. 113 BJ
c
. 2. In order to ensure that there is no disturbance in the sen-
iority and the promotional prospects of the regularly recruited doc-
tors there will be a separate seniority list in respect of the appel-
lants and their promotions shall be regulated by such separate sen-
ioritylist and such promotions will only be in supernumerary posts
D to be created by the Government. [p. 113 B-C]

3(a). Each of the appellants will be eligible for promotion to
. the post of Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer or fur-
ther promotional pos.ts therefrom taking into account his seniority
-
in the separate seniority list. [p. 113 DJ
E
(b).1'he promotion of any of the appellants to the post of Sen-
ior Medical officer, Chief Medical Officer and further promotional
post therefrom will be on par with the promotion of the regularly
recruited doctor who is immediately junior to the concerned appel-
lant on the basis of their respective dates of appointment, e.g. if a
F regularly recruited doctor, on the basis of the seniority list main-
tained by the Department, gets a promotion as Senior Medical Of-
ficer or Chief Medical Officer or further promotion thereafter, then
the appellant who was appointed immediately earlier to him will
also be promoted as a Senior. Medical officer or Chief Medical Of-
ficer or further promotion therefrom (as the case may be) with
G effect from the same date. [p. 113 D-F)

4. In order to avoid any conflict or any possibilities of rever-
sion, the post to which an appllant will be promoted (whether as
Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer or on further pro- _
motion therefrom) should only be to a supernumerary post. Such
H number of supernumerary posts should be created by the Govern-
P.P.C. RAW ANI v. U.0.1. 111

ment as may be necessary to give elfect to the above directions. No A
/ promotion will be given to any of the appellants in the existing
- vacancies which will go only to the regularly appointed doctors. [pp.
113 F-H, 114 A)
5. All the writ petitioners and interveners, falling in the cat-
egory of the appellants, would also be entitled to the same reliefs as B
the appeUants for all purposes of seniority and promotion. [p. 114
A-CJ
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: C.M.P. No.8076 ·
of 1988 and I.A. Nos. 3,5,6 and 7 of 1990 In Civil Appeal No. 3519 of
1984. . .
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.1984 of the Delhi High
Court in W.P. No. 1144 of 1983.

WITH

Writ Petit~on (C) Nos. 2620-59of1985. D
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

C.S. Vaidyanathan, Ms.Smitha Singh, K.A.Raja, A.K. Srivastava,
Ms. Sushma Suri, C.V.S. Rao, Ms. C.K. Sucharita and Vimal Dave for the
appearing parties.
E
The following Order of the court was delivered:

CMP No. 8076/1988: This is an application by certain doctors of
the Central Health Service for clarification of the earlier orders passed by
this Court in C.A. 3519/1984. Actually, the appellants' grievance is that
even though the appeal was disposed of by the order of this court dated F
9.4.1987 and the directions given therein have been reiterated in the sub-
sequent orders of this Court, the Union of India has not given proper
effect to the directions given by this Court.

Briefly, the appellants were originally appointed after interview by
selection committees but only as ad hoc appointees in the above service. G
They were appointed· on various dates between 1968 and 1977. Their
grievance is that dispite their long service in the Department they were
not regularised with reference to their original dates of appointment. The
Union of India pointed out certain difficulties in giving effect to the order
of this Court of April, 1987 by filing a review petition and then a clarifi-
cation application but these have been dismissed. The resultant position is H
that all the appellants have to be regularised in Group A of the Central
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Health Service w.e.f. I. Ll973 or the date of their respective original
apP,l.ntments whichever is later. We may mention here that this date .
1.1.1973 is mentioned here because the appellants have now expressed
their willingness to be considered for regular appointment only from this .
date and not from any earlier date, this being the date on which the group
B and Group A services were merged together by the Government of India
B on the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. The only diffi- '
culty experienced by the Union of India in giving effect to the directions "'
of this Court which now subsists is that if regularisation is granted to all
the appellants, doctors who have been regularly appointed in Group A
after an 4\terview by the Union Public Service Commission may get rel-
egated to secondary positions in view of the fact that the appellants were
C appointed much earlier though on an. ad· hoc basis. These regularly re-
cruited doctors had not been heard earlier and they have now come up
with intervention applications praying that any order of regularisation of
the appellants should ensure that their interests are not prejudiced. This
was also the anxiety of the Union of India as expressed in the counter
affidavit filed in this Court.
D
After hearing all the counsel,· we were inclined to think that while
the appellant~ should get their rights which were declared by this Court in
its earlier orders, there should at the same time be no prejudice to the
doctors appointed through regular recruitment by the Union Public Serv-
ice Coinmission. After some discussion, counsel for the appellants agreed
E to put forward certain proposals which would safeguard their interests and
also at the same time not prejudice the regular appointees through the
Union Public Service Commission. The essence of the proposal made by
them is that they may be treated to be a separate category with their own

--
seniority list and entitled to promotion in accordance with that seniority
list, the problem of conflict with the direct regular recruits being avoided r
F by creation of an appropriate number of supernumerary posts. The Union
of India is not agreeable to accept these proposals which were set·down by
the appellants at our instance, in the form of an affidav_it. The proposals of
the appellants have been set down in an annexure to an affidavit filed by
Dr.PPC Rawani and dated 16th July, 1991. However, after considering the
matter we are of the opinion that there is no way of rendering justice to all
G the parties before us except by accepting these proposals in the manner to
be set down below particularly because we find that while making the
proposals, the appellan£s have also to some extent expressed the willing-
ness to forgo certain rights that. might have accrued to them in conse-
quence of the earlier orders passed by this Court. We are of the opinion
that the proposals made are reasonable in the circumstances of the case
H and that they do not also in any way prejudice the rights of the regularly
recruited doctors.
P.P.C. RAWANI v. U.0.1. 113

In view of this, we direct that the following proposal be imple- A
mented by the Department by way of giving effect to the order of this

..,. '
' '!.
Court in C.A. 3519/84 dated April, 1987 and the subsequent clarificatory
orders passed by this Court :
The directions given are as follows:
1. Each of the appellants will be treated as regularised in Group A B
of the Central Health Service from 1.1.1973 or the date of his
first initial appointment in the service (though as ad hoc Group
B doctor), whichever is later.
2. . In order to ensure that there is no disturbance of the seniority and
the promotional prospects of the regularly recruited doctors there
will be a separate seniority list in respect of the appellants and c
their promotions (about which directions are given below) shall
l>e regulated by such separate seniority list and such promotions
will only be in supernumerary posts to be created as mentioned
below.
3. (a) Each of the appellants will be eligible for promotion to the
D
post of Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer or fur-
---..
!
ther promotional posts therefrom taking into account bis senior-
ity in the separate seniority list which is to be drawn up as
indicated above.

.. (b) The promotion of any of the appellants to the post of Senior
Medical Officer, Chief Medical Officer and further promotional E
post therefrom will be on par with the promotion of the regularly
recruited doctor who is immediately junior to the concerned ap-
pellant on the basis of their respective dates of appointment. In
other words, if a regularly recruited doctor, on the basis of the
selliority list maintained by the Department, gets a promotion as
Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer or further pro- F
-r
t
motion thereafter, then the appellant who was appointed imme-
diately earlier to him will also be promoted as a Senior Medical
Officer or Chief Medical Officer or further promotion therefrom
(as the case may be) with effect from the same date ..
....
4. In order that there may be no conflict or any possibilities of
reversion, the post to which an appellant will be promoted (whether G
as Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer or on further
< promotion therefrom) should only be to a supernumerary post.'
Such number of supernumerary posts should be created by the
Government as may be necessary to give effect to the above
directions. No promotion will be given to any of the appellants
in the existing vacancies which will go only to the regularly H
114 SUPREME COUR-;I' REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A appointed doctors.
5. The appellants hereby agree to give up all monetary claims on
account of revision of scales, regularisation or promotion to which
they would be entitled till 31.10 .199 L · ·
6. . Apart from the appellants there are certain doctors who fall in
the same category but who had not filed writ petitions before the
B High Court. They have filed directly writ petitions before this
Court bearing Nos. 2620-2659/1985 and intervention applica-
tions. The intervention applications are allowed and rule nisi is
issued in the writ petitions of which the other parties take notice.
These interveners and writ petitioner have to be granted the same
relief as the appellants. It is made clear that all these applicants
c and petitioners will be entitled to the same reliefs as the appel-
lants for all purposes of seniority and promotion. All monetary
claims on account of revision of scales, regularisation or promo-
tion till 31.10.1991 are given up by these applicants and peti-
tioners as well.
D We direct that, in view of the long pendency of litigation before this
Court, the Union of India should take immediate steps to implement the
above directions. The directions should be given effect to latest by 31st
March, 1992.

All the interim applications in the matter stand disposed of in view
E of the fact that the main CMP itself has been disposed of.

R.P. Matters disposed of.