Holding

Regularisation of ad‑hoc medical officers must be effected only through a regular appointment in accordance with the prescribed recruitment rules, i.e., after selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee.

Summary

Three medical officers were appointed on an ad‑hoc basis by Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. and later sought regularisation and parity pay. The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed that they be regularised with effect from 1 April 1986 and that they receive regular pay scales. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that regularisation constitutes a regular appointment and must follow the corporation’s recruitment rules, which require selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee. Consequently, the High Court’s direction for regularisation without such a selection process was set aside, while the direction for payment of regular pay scales was upheld. The Court ordered the corporation to constitute a Selection Committee to consider the officers’ regularisation within three months, with a relaxation of the age limit if necessary.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can direct regularisation of ad‑hoc medical officers without complying with the corporation's recruitment rules and selection committee procedure.
Whether payment of regular pay scales can be ordered independently of regularisation.
Interpretation of the recruitment rules governing regular appointment of medical officers.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art. 14

Subjects

regularisationad‑hoc appointmentselection committeerecruitment rulesservice lawmedical officerpay scaleArticle 14

Judgment

HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LTD. AND ORS. A
v.
DR. P. SAMASIVA RAO ETC.

JANUARY 30, 1996
__,. [S.C. AGARWAL AND G.T. NANAVAT!, JJ.]" B

Service Law-Ad hoc appointments-Regularisation-Recruitment
rules-Procedure prescribed-Regular appoilltment on post of medical of-
~

ficer-Method of selection by Selection Committe~Direction for regularisa-
tion given by High Court held impennissible. c
The respondents were appointed as medical officers in the appellant
corporation on ad hoc basis. They claimed regularisation of their services
from the initial date of appointment and also sought a direction to the
appellant· corporation to pay salary and allowances on par with the
regular medical officers working in the corporation. The Division Bench D
• while allowing the writ petitions observed that these persons were eligible
for appointment and they were also qualified according to the rules and
there was no complaint abont the satisfactory nature of the service and

... therefore, it was directed that their services be regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1986
in a regular scale of pay with two advance increments in view of the long
spell of temporary service. It was further held that these medical officers
E
were not entitled to any other benefits like seniority, promotions etc. These
appeals had been tiled against the judgment of the High Court.

The appellant - corporation submitted that regular appointment on
the post of Medical Officer could only be made through a process of F
selection by the Selection Committee in accordance with the Recruitment
Rules framed by the appellant· corporation for appointment and the High
Court was in error in directing regularisation of all the three medical
officers w.e.f. 1.4.1986 without their being required to undergo selection by
the Selection Committee.
G
' The respondent urged that having regard to the fact that they had
-l been working as medical ofticers for a number of years and there being no
complaint about their performance during this period and that after 1984
no regular selection had been made and.the respondent-medical officers
had no opportunity of being considered for regular selection by the Selec· H
1037
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A tion Committee, the High Court had not committed any error in giving the
direction regarding regularisation and for payment of regular salary.

Allowed the appeals, this Court

HELD : The process of regularisation involves regular appointment
B which can be done only in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Having regard to the Recruitment Rules which have been made by the
appellant - corporation, regular appointment on the post of medical ollicer
could only be made after the duly constituted Selection Committee had
found the person suitable for such appointment. The fact that no regular
C selection had been made after their appointment on ad hoc basis did not
mean that they were entitled to be regularised w.e.f., 1.4.1986. As a result
of the direction for regularisation given by the High Court, the require-
ment in the Rules regarding selection by a Selection Committee for the
·purpose of regular appointment on the post of medical ollicer had been
dispensed with. This was impermissible. The only direction that could be
D given in the matter of regularisation was that the respondent-medical
ollicers should be considered by a duly constituted Selection Committee
as per the Rules for the purpose of regular appointment on the post of
medical ollicer and the appellant- Corporation should constitute a Selec-
tion Committee for that purpose. (1044-C-G, 1045-C)
E
Dr. A.K Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1987) Supp. SCC 497,
distinguished.

Dr. MA. Haque & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1993] 2 SCC 213,
relied on.
F
1.2. The direction given by the High Court for payment of regular
pay scales to the respondent-medical officers w.e.f. 1.4.1986 is sustained.
(1045-D)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4216-19
G of 1993 ETC.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.2.93 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.A. Nos. 281/86, 944/91 and W.P. Nos. 4337 and 585 of
1989.

H K. Ram Kumar for the Appellants.
HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LTD. v. P.S.RAO [S.CAGRAWAL,J.] 1039

C K Sucharita, L Nateshwara Rao, R. Santhanakrishnan, K.R. A
-j Nagaraja, Narasimha, P.S. and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.C. AGRAWAL, J. These appeals raise common questions relating B
to regularisation of three medical officers (respondents herein) working
with the Hindustan Shipyard Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the
appellant -corporation').
"1
Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao obtained the M.B.B.S. degree in 1975 and he
was appointed as a medical officer in the appellant-corporation on Oc- c
tober 29, 1976 on an honorarium of Rs. 600 per month to work in the
dispensary in the colony/first aid centre in the yard. The said appointment
was continued till February 27, 1985 with artificial breaks of one day after
each appointment for 89 days. During this period a selection was made for
regular appointment on two posts of medical officer in 1980-81. Dr. P. D
" Sambasiva Rao was not considered eligible for such selection on the view
that for the purpose of eligibility the applicant should have obtained the
degree in medicine by 1974 and Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao had obtained his
medical degree in the year 1975. He filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 2058
of 1981) in the Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein he sought a writ or
direction declaring that he was entitled for absorption into the post of E
medical officer in the appellant-corporation. In the said writ petition, the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant-corporation gave an undertak-
ing before the Court that Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao would be treated as eligible
for selection and he was called for interview on March 12, 1981 but he was
not selected and he continued to work on ad hoc basis. The last appoint- F
ment given to Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao was on December 4, 1984 for the
period December 5, 1984 to February 27, 1985. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao fell
ill and applied for leave from March 1, 1985 but he was informed on June
6, 1985 that his appointment was an ad hoc appointment which expired on
February 27, 1985 and, therefore, the question of sanctioning leave after
February 27, 1985 did not arise. Feeling aggrieved by the termination of G
his services with effect from February 27, 1985, Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao filed
•. a writ petition (W.P. No. 9844 of 1985) in the Andhra Pradesh High Court
wherein he sought a declaration that the order dated June 6, 1985 terminat-
ing his services with effect from February 27, 1985 was arbitrary and illegal,
and als6-sought a declaration that he should be deemed to be continuing H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A in service of the appellant-corporation continuously. Both the Writ Peti-
tions (W.P. No. 2058 of 1981 and W.P. No. 9844 of 1985) were disposed
of by a learned single Judge of the High Court (Anjaneyulu J.) by Judgment
dated February 28, 1986. Allowing W.P. No. 9844 of 1985 and quashing the
order dated June 6, 1985, the learned single Judge held that the said order
effectively dispensing with the services of Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao with effect
B from March 1, 1985 was extremely arbitrary and unreasonable and was
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The appellant-corporation was
directed to reinstate Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao forthwith and consider him for
appointment on regular basis at the earliest. The appellant-corporation was
also directed to put Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao on a reasonable scale of pay. In
C view of the orders passed in W.P. No. 9844 of 1985, the learned single
Judge did not consider necessary to pass further orders in W.P. No. 2058
of 1981. The appellant- corporation filed VJ.A. No. 281of1986 and W.A.
No. 282 of 1986 against the said decision of the learned single Judge in
these two writ petitions.
D While the said appeals were pending, Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao filed two
writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 4337 of 1989 and 585 of 1989). In writ petition
No. 4337 of 1989, Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao claimed seniority in the category
of medical officers, time scale of pay on par with regular medical officers
and other attendant benefits like employer's share of contributory furid,
E ex-gratia amounts etc. In writ petition No. 585 of 1989, Dr. P. Sambasiva
Rao Claimed allotment of residential quarter and also allowance at the rate
of Rs. 400 per month since April 1, 1986 and to finalise his leave account.

Dr. J. Sanjeeva Kumar passed the M.B.B.S. degree examination in
F 1981 and he joined the appellant corporation as medical officer on July 16,
1985 on an initial pay of Rs. 35 per day. The said appointment was for 89
days each time with a break of one day, i.e., 90th day and on the 91st day
he was reappointed. The said remuneration was raised from Rs. 35 per day
to Rs. 50 per day with effect from April 27, 1987. He filed a writ petition
(W.P. No. 9987 of 1990) in the Andhra Pradesh High Conrt where in he
G sought regularisation. of his services with effect from the initial date of
appointment, i.e., July 16 1985 and also sought a direction to the appellant-
corporation to pay salary and allowances on par with the regular medicat '
officers working in the appellant-corporation with effect from July 16, 1985.
In the said writ petition the case of Dr. J. Sanjeeva Kumar was that he had
H been working for six hours every day throughout the period of five years
HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD Lill. v. P.S. RAO [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 1041

and though the remuneration which was being paid to him was described A
as honorarium, he was discharging his duties as medical officer like other
medical officers working with the appellant-corporation and that regular
medical officers in the service of the appellant-corporation who were also
discharging the same duties were receiving salary in the time scale of Rs.
960-50-1860 plus other allowance. The said writ petition (W.P. No. 9987 of B
1990) of Dr. J. Sanjeeva Kumar was allowed by learned single Judge of the
High Court (Panduranga Rao J.) by judgment dated April 11, 1990 and
the appellant-corporation was directed to regularise the services of Dr. J.
i Sanjeeva Kumar in the category of medical officers with effect from July
16, 1985 and to pay to him the salary and other allowances on par with
regular medical officers working with the appellant-corporation from July C
13, 1990, the date on which the writ petition was presented before the High
Court. The regularisation of the services of Dr. Sanjeeva Kumar from July
16, 1985 to the date of filing of the writ petition was limited for the purpose
of the pensionary benefits only and for claiming any seniority and that the
pay was directed to be fJXed in the initial stage of medical officers on and D
from July 13, 1990. W.A. No. 944 of 1991 was filed by the appellant-cor-
poration against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.
9987 of 1990.
.,
W.A. Nos. 281 & 282 of 1986 and 944 of 1991 filed by the appellant-·
corporation against the judgments of the learned single judges in the writ E
petitions of Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao and Dr. J. Sanjeeva Kumar as well as
writ petitions Nos. 4337 of 1989 and 585 of 1985 filed by Dr. P. Sambasiva
)
Rao, were heard by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
and decided by a common judgment dated February 2, 1993. The learned
Judges observed that the fact that Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao was working with F
effect from October 29, 1976 and Dr. J. Sanjeeva Kumar with effect from
July 16, 1985 on honorarium was not disputed and that the appellant-cor-
poration had not stated that the services ofthese two medical officers were
not satisfactory and it was also not brought to the notice of the court that
there was any complaint against the said medical officers. The learned
Judges also observed that both these persons were eligible for appointment G
I, and they were also qualified according to rules and there was no complaint
about the satisfactory nature of the service and it was also not disputed
that their appointment on regular basis does not run counter to the
reserva,ion policy and, therefore, it was held that the direction given by the
learned single Judges in both the cases directing the regularisation of the H
'r
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A services of these two medical officers fell within the four corners of the law
laid down by this Court in State of Hwyana v. Piara Singh, [1992] 4 SCC
118. It was directed that the services of Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao be
-
regularised with effect from April 1, 1986 in a regular scale of pay and he
would be entitled for two advance increments in view of the long spell of
temporary service he had put in and he would also be provided with official
B accommodation within six months otherwise he would be given allowance
as per rules. Similarly, with regard to Dr. J. Sanjeeva Kumar, it was held
that he was entitled to be regularised with effect from April 1, 1986 and
be given two advance increments and official accommodation within six r
months or in the alternative allowance as per rules. It was further held that
c both these medical officers were not entitled to any other benefits like
seniority, promotion etc. as sought for.

Dr. S. Prasada Rao was originally appointed as medical officer with •I
the appellant-corporation on September 1, 1984 on daily wage basis a Rs.35
D per day and the said remuneration was increased to Rs. 50 per day from
April 20, 1987. He filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 12648 of 1990) in the
Andhra Pradesh High Court claiming regularisation of his services in the
category of medical officers with effect from the date of his initial appoint-
ment, i.e., September 1, 1984 and also sought a direction regarding pay-
,
men! of salary and other allowances on par with regular medical officers
E working in the appellant-corporation with effect from September 1, 1984.
The said writ petition of Dr. S. Prasada Rao was allowed by the learned
single Judge of the High Court (Jagannadha Raju J.) by judgment dated
September 18, 1991 and it was directed that the services of Dr. S. Prasada (

Rao shall be regularised with effect from his original date of appointment,
F i.e., September 1, 1984, as regular medical officer and that he would also
be entitled to the consequent benefits. W.A. No. 1318 of 1991 was filed in
by the appellant-corporation against the said judgment of the learned
single Judge. The said appeal was disposed of by another Division Bench
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by judgment dated September 8, 1993.
Following the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 944 of
G 1991 filed by the appellant-corporation in the case of Dr. J. Sanjeeva
Kumar, the Division Bench treating Dr. S. Prasada Rao on par with Dr. J. !
Sanjeeva Kumar disposed of the said appeal with the direction that services
of Dr. S. Prasada Rao would be regularised with effect from April 1, 1986
and he should also be given two advance increments and official accom-
H modation within six months.
HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LTD. v. P.S RAO [S.C.AGRAWAL.J.J 1043

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions of the Andhra Pradesh A
High Court, the appellant-corporation has filed these appeals.

Shri Ram Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appcllant-
corporation, has placed before us the Recruitment Rules framed by the
appellant-corporation for appointment against regular/temporary posts in
connection with the affairs of the company including the post of Medical B
Officer. Under the said Rules, direct recruitment is to be resorted to when
the post is not to be filled in by promotion as per the promotion procedure.
... For the purpose of direct recruitment, the Rules provide that normally an
advertisement is issued in leading daily newspapers on all India basis to
tap the potential available from the employment market, but simultaneously c
other sources of recruitment are also tapped and where the job required
exceptional skills, knowledge and experience, which are not normally avail-
able in the employment market, the competent authority may decide to fill
up the post on deputation of officers from the Central/State Governments
and other public sector undertakings. The Rules make provision for screen-
ing of applications received in response to advertisements and preparation
D
of a list of candidates who may be called for interview before the Selection
Committee. The Rules provide through one or all the following selection
methods:

(i) Competitive, Aptitude/Technical Test; E
(ii) Group Task; and

(iii) Personal Interview.

The recommendations of the Selection Committee are submitted to the F
competent authority for approval and after obtaining the approval of the
competent authority appointment orders are issued.

The submission of Shri Ram Kumar is that regular appointment on
the post of Medical Officer can only be made through a process of G
selection by the Selection Committee in accordance with the aforemen-
tioned Rules and the High Court was in error in directing regularisation
of all the three medical officers with effect from April 1, 1986 without their
being required to undergo selection by the selection Committee. On behalf
of the respondents-medical officers, it has been urged that having regard
to the fact that they had beea working as medical officers for a number of H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.

A years and there was no complaint about there performance during this
period, the High Court was justified in giving the direction for their
regularisation with effect from April 1, 1986 and for payment of regular
salary at par with other medical officers with effect from that date. It has
also been submitted on behalf of the respondents-medical officers that
after 1984 no regular selection has been made and the respondents-medical
B
officers had no opportunity of being considered for regular selection by the
Selection Committee and that in these circumstances the High Court has
not committed any error in giving the direction regarding regularisation.
The learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the
.decisions of this Court in Dr. A.K. Jain & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.,
C [1987] Supp. sec 49"1.

We are unable to endorse the direction given by the High Court
regarding Regularisation of the respondents medical officers with effect
from April 1, 1986. The process of regularisation involves regular appoint-
D ment which can be done only in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Having regard to the rules which have been made by the appellant-cor-
poration, regular appointment on the post of medical officer can only be
made after the duly constituted Selection Committee has found the person
suitable for such appointment. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao, though he had been
working since 1976, was considered by the Selection Committee for regular
E appointment in the year 1981 and was not found suitable for such regular
appointment. Dr. J. Sanjeeva Kumar and Dr. S. Prasada Rao were never
considered by the Selection Committee for regular appointment. The fact
that no regular selection has been made after their appointment on ad hoc
basis does not mean that they are entitled to be regularised with effect from
F Aprill., 1986. In view of the Rules prescribed by the appellant-corporation,
regularisation of the respondent-medical officers on the post of medical
officer can be made only after they are considered and found suitable for
such appointment by a duly constituted Selection Committee. As a result
of the direction for regularisation given by the High Court, the requirement
in the Rules regarding selection by a Selection Committee for the purpose
G of regular appointment on the post of medical officer has been dispensed
with. This, in our opinion, was impermissible.
>
The decision in Dr. A.K Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
(supra), on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent-
H medical officers, does not lend any assistance to them. In that case it was
HTNDUSTANSHIPYARDLTD. r. P.S.RAO [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 1045

directed that the regularisation of the Assi.stant Medical Officers/Assistant A
Divisional Medical Officers who were appointed on ad. hoc basis upto
October 1, 1984 shall be made in· consultation with the Union Public
Service Commission on the evaluation of their work and conduct on the
basis of their confidential reports in respect of a period subsequent to
October 1, 1982. In DI: MA. Haque & Ors. v. Union of India & 01'., [1993]
2 SCC 213, this Court has deprecated the practice of bypassing of the B
Public Service Commission which would open a back door for illegal
recruitment without limit. The direction given by the High Court that the
respondent-medical officers should be regularised with effect from April
1, 1986 cannot, therefore, be upheld. The only direction that can be given
in the matter of regularisation is that the respondent-medical officers
should be considered by a duly constituted Selection Committee as per the
c
Rules for the purpose of regular appointment on the post of medical officer
and the appellant-corporation should constitute a Selection Committee for
that purpose.

We are, however, not inclined to interfere with the direction given D
by the High Court for payment of regular pay scales to the respondent-
medical officers with effect from April 1, 1986.

The appeals arc accordingly allowed to the extent that the direction
given by the High Court for regularisation of the respondent:medical
officers with eifect from April 1, 1986 is set aside. The appellant-corpora- E
tion is directed to constitute a Selection Committee in accordance with the
relevant Rules for considering the matter of regularisation of the respon-
dent- medical officers on the post of medical officer. The said Selection
Committee shall consider the claim of the respondent- medical officers for
such regularisation by applying the criteria laid down for appointment of
medical officers on regular basis and it shall also take into account the F
record of performance of the respondent-medical officer while they were
working on ad hoc basis with the appellant-corporation. In case, the
respondent-medical officers are found to have crossed the age bar for
regular appointment a relaxation should be made in that regard to enable
them to be considered for regularisation. This process of selection by the G
Selection Committee for the purpose of regularisation of the respondent-
medical officers shall be undertaken and completed within a period of
three months. No orders as to costs.

R.A. Appeals allowed.