STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusSATYAVRATA TARAN

               (2011J 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 469


         STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.                        A
                             v.
                    SATYAVRATA TARAN
             (Civil Appeal No. 10554 of 2011)
                   DECEMBER 01, 2011
                                                               B
(H.L. DATTU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]

      Service Law - Madhya Pradesh Educational Service
(Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967 - r.13(5) - Pay
scale - Senior scale/selection grade - Grant of - Whether C
Assistant Professors appointed through different means,
modes and sources including emergency appointees in
terms of r. 13(5), were entitled to claim benefit of the services
rendered prior to their reg:!larization for grant of senior/
selection grade pay scales - Held: Voluminous materials D
produced by both the parties in support of their submissions
in the form of schemes, Govt. orders and circulars were not
by way of affidavit and the opposite party had no knowledge
thereof - Matter therefore remanded to High Court for
consideration afresh with liberty to both the parties to place E
on record all the documents on which they intend to rely in
support of their case including the manner, mode and the
source of appointment of each ·of the Assistant Professors -
Chief Justice of the High Court to assign all the matters to
the Principal Bench itself so that the matters could be finally F
settled by one Bench, instead of two or three Benches taking
different views on the same set of facts and on the questions
of/aw.

    The respondent was appointed on the post of
Assistant Professor on emergency basis under Rule             G
13(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service
(Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967 with an
express condition of immediate termination of his
emergency appointment, without notice, on the
                        469                                    H
    470   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A availability of Pub.lie Service Commission's panel of
  selected candidates. Subsequently, the respondent
  cleared Public Service Commission Examination and
  consequently, as per the condition of his appointment
  order, his services were regularized under M.P.
B Educational Service (Collegiate branch) Recruitment
  Rules, 1990. In the meantime, the State Government
  issued a Circular dated 12.02.1992 for addition of period
  of service rendered by teachers, prior to their service in
  the present College or University as Assistant Professor
c for conferring the benefit of senior/ selection grade pay
  scale but subject to certain conditions. The respondent,
  being aggrieved by non counting of his period of service
  rendered as an emergency appointee on the post of
  Assistant Professor by the State Government for the
0 purpose of granting higher pay scale, filed a Writ Petition
  before the High Court. The same was allowed. Aggrieved
  by the same, the State Government preferred Writ Appeal
  before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the Writ
  Appeal and directed the State Government to count the
  period of service rendered by the respondent on
E emergency appointment for granting the benefit of the
  senior/selection grade pay scales.

      In the instant appeal fUed by the State Government,
  the question which arose for consideration was: Whether
F the Assistant Professors appointed through different
  means, modes and sources including emergency
  appointees in terms of Rule 13(5) of the Madhya Pradesh
  Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment
  Rules, 1967 were entitled to claim the benefit of the
G services rendered by them prior to their regularization for
  grant of s~nior/selection grade pay scales.
       Allowing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. Voluminous materials were produced in
H the form of schemes, Govt. orders and circulars produced
     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v.                 471.
             SATYAVRATA TARAN
by both the counsel appearing for the parties. The            A
documents were not even produced by way of affidavit
and since the counsel on the opposite side had no
knowledge of those documents, it is fit to remand these
matters back to the High Court for fresh disposal in
accordance with law. [Para 11) [483-D-E]                      B

    1.2. The orders passed by the High Court in all these
matters are set aside and the matter is remanded back
to the High Court for its fresh consideration in
accordance with law. Liberty is given to both the parties C
to place on record all the documents on which they
intend to rely in support of their case including the
manner, mode and the source of appointment of each of
the Assistant Professors. [Para 13) [483-H; 484-A-B]

     1.3. The Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High        D
Court is requested to assign all these matters to the
Principal Bench itself so that the matters could be finally
settled by one Bench, instead of two or three Benches
taking different views on the same set of facts and on the
questions of law. [Para 14) [484-C]                           E

     Union of India v. K.B. Rajoria (2000) 3 SCC 562: 2000
(2) SCR 613; Union of India v. Mathivanan (2006) 6 SCC 57:
2006 (3 ) Suppl. SCR 30; Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and Anr.
v. Union of India (1999) 2 SCC 119: 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR
576; S. Sumnyan and Ors. v. Limi Niri and Ors. (2010) 6       F
sec 791: 2010 (4) SCR 829 - cited.
                    Case Law Reference:
    2000 (2) SCR 613             Cited           Para 8
                                                              G
    2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 30       Cited           Para 8
    1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 576      Cited           Para 8
    2010 (4 ) SCR 829            Cited           Para 8
                                                              H
    472    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    10554 of 2011.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 11.2.2010 of the High
    Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in W.A. No.995 of 2009.
B                                WITH

  Civil Appeal Nos. 10555, 10556, 10557, 10558, 10559 10560,
  10561 ' 10562, 10563, 10564, 10565, 10566, 10567, 10568,
  10569, 10570, 10571, 10572, 10573, 10574, 10575, 10576,
c 10577, 10578, 10579, 10580, 10581, 10582, 10583, 10584,
  10585, 10586, 10587, 10588, 10589, 10590, 10591, 10592,
  10593, 10594, 10595, 10596, 10597, 10600, 10601, 10602,
  10603, 10604, 10605, 10606, 10607, 10608, 10609, 10610,
  10611, 10613, 10614, 16515, 10616, 10617, 10618, 10621,
D 10622, 10623, 10624, 10625, 10626, 10627, 10629, 10630,
  10631, 10632, 10633, 10634, 10635, 10636. 10637, 10638,
  10639, 10640, 10641, 10642, 10643, 10644, 10645, 10646,
  10647, 10648, 10649, 10650, 10651, 10652, 10653, 10654,
  10655, 10656, 10657, 10658, 10659, 10660 10661, 10662,
E 10663, 10664 of 2011.

      Vivek. K. Tankha, ASG, P.S. Patwalia, B.S. Banthia, Anil
  Pandey, Vibha Datta Makhija, K. Vijay Kumar, K.K. Tyagi, P.
  Narasimhan, Romy Chacko, Arpit Gupta, L.C. Patney, Anupam
  Lal Das, Bharat Sangal, Vernika Tamar, Srijana Lama, Amit
F Sharma, Shahid Anwar, Dr. Kailash Chand, Rajendra Mishra,
  Raza Syed Khadim, Rajesh Singh, Ravindra S. Garia for the
  appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G         H.L. DATIU, J.

          Delay condoned. Leave granted.

          1. The present batch of appeals, by way of special leave,
H
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v.                       473
        SATYAVRATA TARAN [H.L. DATTU, J.]

arises out of a common Order dated 11.02.2010 passed by               A
the Madhya Pradesh High Court and raises an identical question
of law and facts for our consideration and decision. They are,
therefore, being heard together and disposed of by this
common Judgment and Order.
                                                                      B
    2. The common issue before us, in these appeals, can be
summarized thus: Whether the Assistant Professors appointed
through different means, modes and sources including
emergency appointees in terms of Rule 13(5) of the Madhya
Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment           C
Rules, 1967 are entitled to claim the benefit of the services
rendered by them prior to their regularization for grant of senior/
selection grade pay scales.

    3. All these appeals are directed against the common
Order dated 11.02.2010 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh            D
in Writ Appeal No. 599 of 2008 and other connected matters,
whereby the writ appeals, filed by the appellants challenging the
grant of senior scale/selection grade benefit to the respondents,
by counting their period of service rendered as emergency
appointees, were dismissed.                                           E

     4. All the matters pertain to grant of senior/selection grade
pay scales and for the sake of convenience, we may note such
facts as emerging from record of the Special Leave Petition
(C) No.16906 of 2010.
                                                                      F
    The respondent was appointed on the post of Assistant
Professor on emergency basis vide Appointment Order dated
14.12.1987 under Rule 13(5) of Recruitment Rules, 1967 with
an express condition of immediate termination of his
emergency appointment, without notice, on the availability of         G
Public Service Commission's panel of selected candidates.
Subsequently, the respondent had cleared Public Service
Commission Examination and consequently, as per the
condition of his appointment order, his services were
regularized vide Order dated 02.09.1993 under M.P.                    H
    474    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A    Educational Service (Collegiate branch) Recruitment Rules,
     1990 (hereinafter referred to as "Recruitment Rules, 1990"). In
    the meantime, the State Government had issued a Circular
    dated 12.02.1992 for addition of period of service rendered by
    teachers, prior to their service in the present College or
B    University as Assistant Professor for conferring the benefit of
    senior/selection grade pay scale but subject to certain
    conditions. The respondent had made several representations
    to the State Government for counting his period of service as
    emergency appointee for determination of benefit of the senior/
c   selection grade pay scale, but the same were not replied.
    Subsequently, the State Government issued another Circular
    dated 11.10.1999 for revision of the pay scale which provides
    for the grant of benefit of senior grade pay scale after rendering
    minimum 6 years of service period and further 5 years of
    service period in senior grade as essential requirement for
0
    placement in selection grade pay scale as per clause 8 (a) of
    the said Circular. The respondent, being aggrieved by not
    counting of his period of service rendered as an emergency
    appointee on the post of Assistant Professor by the State
    Government for the purpose of granting higher pay scale, had
E   filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
    inter-alia seeking an appropriate Writ and other consequential
    reliefs. The same came to be allowed vide Judgment and Order
    dated 15.01.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the State
    Government preferred a Writ Appeal before the High Court.
F   The High Court, vide its impugned common Order dated
    11.02.2010, dismissed the Writ Appeal and directed the State
    Government to count the period of service rendered by the
    respondent on emergency appointment for granting the benefit
    of the senior/selection grade pay scales. Being aggrieved, the
G   State Government is before us in this appeal.

      5. The learned single Judge of the High Court, vide its
  Order dated 15.01.2009, observed that in view of series of
  decisions of the High Court, the service rendered by the
H Assistant Professor, appointed on the emergency basis,
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v.                      475
        SATYAVRATA TARAN [H.L. DATTU, J.]
requires to be counted for the purpose of granting benefit of A.
higher pay scale. The High Court has specifically followed the
Order dated 13.07.2007 of Single Judge in Smt. Sandhya
Prasad v. State of M.P. in W.P. No. 807/2007(S) which, in turn,
has followed the Division Bench decision in State of MP. &
another v. Dr.(Smt.) Seer;na Raizada & another in W.A. No. B
4863/2001 decided on 10.08.2005. The learned Single Judge
also clarified that the period of such service will only be counted
for the purpose of granting the benefit of senior pay scale and
selection grade and l'lot for seniority in the cadre of Assistant
Professor.                                                           c
     6. The Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.
599/2008 and other connected matters, vide its impugned
common Order, has discussed its earlier decision in State of
 M.P. & another v. Dr.(Smt.) Seema Raizada & another (Supra).
That was the Writ Petition, filed by the State Government            D
against the Order of the State Administrative Tribunal
challenging the direction issued to take into consideration the
period of service of the emergency appointee for determining
the benefit of higher pay scale, which had been dismissed by
the High Court. The High Court further observed that this            E
decision was consistently followed by it in several other Division
Bench and Single Bench decisions. The State Government,
being aggrieved by these decisions in Dr. (Smt.)Seema
Raizada (Supra) and other connected matters, preferred a
Special Leave Petition before this Court. This Court, vide its       F
Order dated 03.12.2007, dismissed Special Leave Petition on
the ground of delay and hence, left the question of law open.
The State Government also preferred a Review Petition, which
was dismissed by this Court vide its Order dated 12.03.2008.
Thereafter, the State Government, in identical matters, preferred    G
a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court in
view of the dismissal of the SLP on the ground of delay but
question of law was left open. The High Court, in its impugned
judgment, has also discussed the judgment and order dated
07.05.2009 in Writ Appeal No. 528/2008 in State of M.P. v. Dr.       H
    476     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A    Brijesh Kumar. That Writ Appeal was filed by the State
     Government against the Single Judge Order wherein the benefit
     of higher pay scale was conferred on account of period of
     service rendered as emergency appointee. In that Writ Appeal,
     the High Court, after placing reliance on various earlier
B   decisions, observed that there is a conceptual difference
     between the conferral of seniority and counting of the services
    for the purpose of grant of senior pay scale and the selection
    grade. The benefit of higher pay scale has to be given by
    counting the service from the date of initial appointment as the
c   appointment was, as per the rules and has been, later
    regularized. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has also
    observed that the High Court has consistently taken a view that
    emergency appointees, under Rule 13(5) of the Recruitment
    Rules, 1967, are entitled for the benefit of higher pay scale by
    counting the services rendered as emergency appointees. The
0
    High Court has also observed that the State Government has
    failed to grant the benefit of higher pay scale to the emergency
    appointees vide its Circular dated 11.12.1999. It further held
    that the emergency appointments were made after following
    due process of advertisement and selection in the pay scale
E   and such aopointees continued, till their regularization, without
    any break. Hence, such appointments were not on purely ad
    hoc basis. Tha High Court further observed that the emergency
    appointees satisfy all the five essential conditions envisaged
    in the Circular dated 12.02.1992 issued by the State
F   Government in order to take into account the period of prior
    service rendered for determining the grant of higher pay scale
    and selection grade. The relevant portion of the impugned Order
    of the High Court is extracted below:

G         "7. It is not in dispute that advertisement was issued,
          selection committee was formed which has considered the
          cases of the employees, they were duly qualified for being
          appointed, their appointments have continued till their
          regularisation and they were holding the similar pay scale
H         in which they were regularised. Appointment was made in
 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v.                       477
   SATYAVRATA TARAN [H.L. DATTU, J.)
the pay scale not on fixed pay and there was no brake,          A
they were not appointed as against any leave vacancy, the
appointment was not on purely ad hoc basis without
following the procedure', the appointment was made under
the aforesaid rule 12(5).
                                                                8
8. In the light of the aforesaid undisputed facts when we
consider circular dated 12.2.93 issued by the State
Government which has been relied upon by the Tribunal
while rendering decision in case of Seema Raizada and
Padma Shrivastava, a close reading of the circular dated        C
12.2.92 indicates that prior service rendered has to be
countered for the purpose of grant of higher pay scale and
selection grade pay scale on following conditions:

(i) that the post held must be equivalent and carrying the
same pay scale;                                                 D

(ii) the qualifications of the post held should not be less
than then prescribed qualification by the UGC for the post
of lecturer;

(iii) at the time of appointment on the earlier post of which   E
service is to be counted an incumbent must possess the
minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC;

(iv) appointment on the post must have been made by the
prescribed selection procedure by the State Government;         F
and

(v) the appointment should not be purely ad hoc or as
against leave vacancy for less than one year.

When we apply the aforesaid five conditions in the instant      G
case, one by one, it is not disputed that appointment of
the employees was on the same post and in the same pay
scale. Thus, the first condition stands satisfied. When we
come to the second condition as to the qualifications
prescribed for the post, the post held was the same post        H
    478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A       and the qualifications possessed by incumbents were not
        less than that prescribed by the UGC, it is not the case of
        State that qualifications prescribed in advertisement were
        less. Thus, second condition also stands fulfilled. When we
       come to lllrd condition, the incumbent was holding the
B      minimum qualification prescribed by UGC at the time of
       appointment on emergency basis, they were holding the
       qualifications has also not been disputed. When we come
       to fourth condition it is admitted that selection was made
       as prescribed under Rule 12(5) (sic.) of the Rules of 1967,
c      since the appointment was made under Rule 12(5), the
       aforesaid IVth condition also stands satisfied. When we
       examine fifth and last condition it is apparent that
       appointment was made on emergency basis not on purely
       ad hoc basis, it was not against any leave vacancy. For
       the purpose of appointment, prescribed procedure under
D
       Rule 12(5) (sic.) was followed, appointment was made
       under the rule. Rules provide for emergency appointment
       and prescribed the procedure for that which was followed
       and ultimately the services were regularised. The State
       Government has taken the decision vide circular dated
E      12.2.92 for counting of such services for the purpose of
       higher pay scale and for selection pay scale, the benefit
       of which could not have been denied to the employees, thus
       relief has to be given on then basis of the aforesaid circular
       dated 12.2.92. Though it is not necessc>ry to go into the
F      DO of the MP PSC in view of circular dated 12.2.92, but
       MP PSC has clearly mentioned in its DO dated 25.12.98
       thus:-
       "The Commission after seeking legal opinion on clause
G      1(e) has declined to include service rendered in ad hoc
       capacity for counting of past service for placement in
       senior scale/selection grade, provided that the following
       three condition are fulfilled:-

       "(a) The ad hoc service was of more than one year
H      durataion;
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v.                     479
        SATYAVRATA TARAN [H.L. DATTU, J.]
    (b) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation          A
    of duly constituted Selection Committee, and

    (c) The incumbent was selected to the permanent post in
    continuation to the ad hoc service, without any brake."

    The Commission has taken the above decision.                   B

    The aforesaid three requirements also stand satisfied in
    the instant case. The instant case stand on better footing
    as the service rendered was not purely ad hoc, but it was
    under the rules as an emergency appointee, even ad hoc         c
    appointee in case ahs continued for more than one year
    duration and was selected by duly constituted selection
    committee and was later on selected to the permanent
    post in continuation to the ad hoc service without any
    brake, his services has to be counted fro placement in         D
    Senior Scale/Selection Grade as per aforesaid decision
    of PSC. In the instant case, the case of employees is much
    better. Thus, they could not have been denied the benefits
    of counting of their services rendered as emergency
    appointee and their past services ought to have been           E
    counted for the placement in Senior Scale/ Selection
    Grade, we find that decision rendred by the Single Bench
    to be in accordance with law and we do not find any ground
    to differ from the view taken by different Divison Benches
    of this Court in several matters dismissing the writ appeals
    assailing the order passed by the single Bench or the writ
                                                                   F
    petition preferred against the order passed by State
    Administrative Tribunal."

    The High Court further observed the respondents' stand
on the better footing in terms of both the Circulars dated         G·
12.02.1992 as well as Order dated 25.12.1998 of the M.P.
Public Service Commission as their services are not purely ad
hoc but, under the rules, as an emergency employee. The High
Court, while dismissing the Writ Appeals, concluded that the
respondents are bound to count the services rendered by the        H
    480    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   appellants as emergency appointees for their placement in
    senior scale/selection grade.

          7. Shri. B.S. Banthia, learned counsel for the appellant,
    submits that the Recruitment Rules, 1967 provides two modes
B   of recruitment viz. by direct recruitment made by the PSC under
    Rule 7(1), and emergency appointments under Rule 13(5), when
    the PSC list is not available, on a temporary basis. The service
    of such emergency appointees, the learned counsel would
    contend, could be terminated as soon as PSC list, in
C   accordance with Rule 7(1), was available. He would then state
    that only those appointees, who were appointed by the method
    of direct recruitment, as provided under Rule 7(1), were eligible
    to get the senior and selection grade pay scales and not those
    who were appointed in accordance with Rule 13(5). Though,
    not backdoor appointments, the learned counsel would contend
D   that these were not conforming to the rigors of the selection
    procedure followed by the PSC and hence, could not be
    equated to those appointments made by the PSC. He would
    further submit that his argument is strengthened by the fact that
    the respondents could be terminated without notice in case of
E   availability of the PSC list and that it was essential for the
    respondents to clear the requirements of PSC to get their
    appointments regularized. The learned counsel also relies upon
    voluminous other documents such as various schemes issued
    by UGC from time to time and adopted by the State of Madhya
F   Pradesh either in toto or partially, and also the Government
    Orders and Circulars issued from time to lime indicating the
    entitlement or otherwise of the emergency appointee for Senior
    Scale/Selection Grade and submits that these voluminous
    documents could not be produced before the High Court, since
G   the appeals were disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

        8. Shri. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior coun""el, led the
    arguments for the respondents in the batch of appeals. He
    submits that the respondents are entitled for higher pay scale
    by counting their service rendered as emergency appointees
H
       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v.                        481
         SATYAVRATA TARAN [H.L. DATTU, J.]
 in view of the Circular dated 11.10.1999 read with the Circular        A
 dated 12.02.1992 issued by the State Government. He would
 contend that the appointment of the respondents were made
 after following a due selection procedure and hence, such
 appointments are not in the nature of temporary or ad hoc
 appointments but emergency appointments in accordance with             B
 the Rules. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to receive
 higher pay scale from the date of their initial appointment as
 emergency employees. He would then argue that not only the
 appointments were made as per the mode prescribed under
 the Recruitment Rules of 1967, but also their characteristics          c
 were not akin to those of ad hoc or fortuitous appointments as
 nation-wide advertisements were published and selections
 were made on the basis of merit. It is further submitted that the
 respondents were qualified for appointment to the post and they
 are also getting annual increments for continuous service from         D
 the date of initial appointment. He would argue that it was an
 admitted position that the appointments were not ad hoc
 appointments in view of the a.ffidavit filed by the appellants
 before this Court. He further submits that the Govt. Order dated
 25.08.1998, issued by Madhya Pradesh Public Service
 Commission, which has also been relied upon by the High                E
 Court in its impugned Judgment, contemplates the grant of
 higher pay scale on the basis of ad hoc service rendered for
 more than one year. He submits, by placing reliance on the said
Govt. Order, that the case of respondents stands on the better
footing as their services are not purely ad hoc. Shri. Patwalia         F
would defend the reasoning of the High Court in the impugned
judgment and submit that the respondents, as emergency
appointees, fulfill all the five conditions envisaged in the Circular
dated 12.02.1992. The learn:id senior counsel submits that the
respondents were regularly working without any artificial breaks        G
and that they are paid UGC pay scale with regular annual
increments and are also eligible for pensionary benefits. He
would contend that there are three characteristics of an ad hoc
appointment, viz., they are made de hors the rules, they are
employed for a specified duration and they are in a fixed pay           H
    482   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A scale. He further submits that the grant of senior/selection grade
  pay scale, by taking into account the past period of service
  rendered, is a 'stagnation removal device' and there is no
  reason for the denial of the same to the respondents in the
  present cases. He argues that though the emergency
B appointments were made in view of non-availability Qf selected
  panel candidates of Public Service Commission, but it is a
  matter of fact that the respondents continued in the service till
  their regularization. He further submits that Circular dated
  11.10.1999, while conferring benefit of higher pay scale on the
c Assistant Professors, uses the word "service" instead of
  "regular service" for computing the past services rendered. He
  contends that the 1999 Circular confers benefit to all kinds of
  services without any distinction whether regular, ad hoc,
  temporary or emergency service. He submits that the
  respondents have satisfied all the conditions referred to in
0
  Clause 8(a) of the 1999 Circular to qualify for higher pay scale.
  He argues that Rule 7(4) also contemplates a method of
  appointment other than through Public Service Commission,
  which when read with Rule 13(5), would give the respondents
  a status of being appointed to service under the· Recruitment
E Rules, 1967. He would then submi.t that emergency
  appointments are prescribed under the rules and cannot be
  termed as ad hoc. He further argues that the ad hoc
  appointments are always de hors the service rules and in some
  cases, rules provided for the temporary appointment, for a
F limited period, cannot be considered as. ad hoc. He submits
  that the State Government had granted the benefit of higher pay
  scale under the said Circulars only to the five emergency
  appointees but the same has been denied to those emergency
  appointees, who were appointed and regularized between the
G years 1987 and 2003 and thus, this amounts to discrimination
  and denial of equal treatment to similarly placed emergency
  appointees. In support of his submissions, Shri. Patwalia has
  referred to several precedents of this Court in the case of Union
   of India v. K.B. Rajoria, (2000) 3 SCC 562, Union of India v.
H Mathivanan, (2006) 6 SCC 57, Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.·v.                        483
        SATYAVRATA TARAN [H.L. DATIU, J]
Another v. Union oflndia, (1999) 2 SCC 119 and S. Sumnyan             A
and Ors. v. Limi Niri and Ors., (2010) 6 SCC 791. The learned
senior counsel does not dispute the fact that the appeals were
disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

     9. Shri. Romy Chacko, learned counsel appearing for              B
some of the respondents, adopted the submissions as made
by Shri. Patwalia, and would state that there is a distinction
drawn between ad hoc appointees and emergency appointees
by the State itself.

     10. All other learned counsel, appearing for respondents         C
in connected civil appeals, would adopt the submissions as
made by learned senior counsel Shri. Patwalia.

      11. We tried to wade through voluminous materials in the
form of schemes, Govt. orders and circulars produced by both          D
the learned counsel appearing for the parties. More we tried
to dwelve into the matter, more and more murkier facts, which
we call normally 'Pandoras Box', started emerging. Going
through these documents could have been done by us, but
since those documents were not even produced by way of                E
affidavit and since the learned counsel on the opposite side had
no knowledge of those documents, we have thought it fit to
remand these matters back to the High Court for fresh disposal
in accordance with law, by granting liberty to both the parties
to produce all thse documents which they tried to rely upon
before us.                                                            F

     12. We are also informed by both the learned counsel that
it would be in the interest of all the parties that these petitions
be heard before one Bench so that possibility of divergent
opinion/s from the High Court could be possibly avoided. The          G
expression of desire appears to be reasonable and, therefore,
we accept the same.
     13. In that view of the matter, we allow the appeals, set
aside the orders passed by the High Court in all these matters        H
    484      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (AOOL.) S.C.R.


A and remand the matter back to the High Court for its fresh
  consideration in accordance with law. We also give liberty to
  both the parties to place on record all the documents on which
  they intend to rely in support of their case including the manner,
  mode and the source of appointment of each of the Assistant
B Professors.

       14. We also request the learned Chief Justice of the
  Madhya Pradesh High Court to assign all these matters to the
  Principal Bench itself so that the matters could be finally settled
  by one Bench, instead of two or three Benches taking different
C views on the same set of facts and on the questions of law.

         15. Since the matters were pending for some time, we
    request the learned Chief Justice to either take up the matters
    by himself or assign it to an appropriate Bench and request that
o   Bench to dispose of the appeals at the earliest. We clarify that
    we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
    Ordered accordingly.

    B.B.B.                                        Appeals allowed.