Holding

Ad‑hoc appointments made de hors the rules do not confer permanency or seniority, which accrue only from the date of regular appointment unless the initial appointment itself was made under the rules; seniority for doctors regularised by court direction is counted from their original ad‑hoc appointment dates, and PSC‑selected candidates must be appointed in order of merit with seniority determined from the dates the State received the respective merit lists.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh had made 2,056 ad‑hoc appointments of doctors between 1961‑62 and later failed to regularise the posts despite recommendations of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (PSC) in 1972 and 1977‑79. Some ad‑hoc doctors, having served over 20 years, obtained court orders directing their regularisation with seniority counted from their initial appointment dates, while directly recruited doctors filed writ petitions seeking compliance with PSC recommendations. The Supreme Court was asked to determine the proper principle for fixing inter‑se seniority among the various categories of doctors. The Court held that ad‑hoc appointments made de hors the rules do not confer any right to permanency or seniority unless the initial appointment itself was made under the rules; seniority for those regularised by court direction is counted from the original ad‑hoc appointment date. It directed that PSC‑selected candidates of 1972 be appointed in order of merit with effect from the date the State received the merit list, placed below those whose appointments were already regularised, and that PSC‑selected candidates of 1977‑79 be appointed similarly, placed below the 1972 selectees. Remaining unselected doctors are to be placed below the 1979 list, with seniority determined from the receipt date of that list. The appeals were allowed and the State was directed to fix seniority within six months and settle pension benefits for retired doctors within two months.

Issues considered

Whether ad‑hoc appointments made de hors the service rules confer any right to permanency or seniority.
How seniority should be fixed inter‑se among ad‑hoc doctors who have been regularised by court direction and those who have not.
Whether the State must appoint candidates recommended by the PSC in 1972 and 1977‑79 in accordance with the merit lists and with what seniority effect.

Subjects

service lawad‑hoc appointmentsenioritypublic service commissionregularisationUttar Pradeshmedical serviceinter se senioritypension

Judgment

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. A'
v.
DR. R.K. TANDON AND ORS.

MARCH 23, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) B

Service Law

.... ..,... U.P. Provincial Medical Service-Doctors-Ad hoc appoint-
ments-Regular selection by Public Service Commission-Recommenda- C
tion-But no appointment made-Petition by ad hoc appointees-Directions
for regularisation-Petition by directly recroited doctors-Directions for giving
effect to recommendations of Public Service Commission--State's ap-
peal-Fixation of inter se seniority-Directions by Court.

The appellant-State made ad hoc appointment of 2056 doctors from D
1961-62 onwards. Thereafter, the State Public Service Commission
recruited regular candidates and recommended their appointments but no
appointments were made. In the meanwhile on the basis of litigation
initiated by ad hoc appointees this Court held that since ad hoc doctors
have put in more than 20 years service, denying them seniority would be E
unjust. Consequently, when State attempted to regularise their services
from their respective dates of appointment, direct recruits filed petitions
before the High Court which directed the appellant-State to give effect to
the recommendations of the Public Service Commission confining to can-
didates who were then serving .the State. State preferred appeals before
~~~ F
Allowing the appeals, this Court

HELD : 1. All ad hoc appointments made de hors the rules do not
confer any right to permanancy or seniority. They acquire the rights only
from the date of their regular appointment according to rules. If, however, G
the initial appointments are according to rules, though on ad hoc or
temporary basis, then the seniority would be counted from the dates of
initial appointment. The adhoc appointments here were de hors the rules.
Though the doctors have put in more than 33 years of service, they are ad
hoc hands. All would not get seniOrity from the respective dates of appoint- H
995
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A ments. But the doctors who have had the benefit of direction given by the
. courts to regularise their services with effect from the dates on which they -('
were appointed are entitled to count their seniority from the respective
dates of initial appointments. [997-G-H, 998-A]

2. Doctors whose names were recommended by Public Service Com-
B mission in 1972, should be appointed in order of merit determined by the
Public Service Commission with effect from the date on which the State
received the merit list from the Public Service Commission. They be placed
below the candidates whose appointmets were upheld by the Courts and
became final. [998-B-C]
c 3. Candidates recommended by the Public Service Commission in
1977, 1978 and 1979 be appointed in the order of merit in the respective
lists with effect from the dates on which the State Government had received
the respective lists. Their seniority would be as per the determination of
the Public Service Commission in the respective lists. They would be placed
D below 1972 selectees. Rest of the candidates, who were not selected but are
still continuing in service, would be placed below the last of the third list
and their seniority should be determined with effect from the date of the
receipt of the list dated 10.5.79. Among non-selectees, the date on which _,/__,-
the list dated 10.5.1979 was received by the State Government would be the
E cut-off date and taking into consideration the respective dates of appoint-
ments as on that date and if made thereafter, seniority will be counted
from those respective dates. (998-D-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4438-42
of 1995 etc. etc.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.2.92 of the Allahabad High ·~
Court in W.P. No. 5809/87, 10921, 10926, 10923 and 10922 of 1989. "

D.V. Sehgal and R.B. Misra with him for the Appellants.
G A.B. Mathew, S.K. Misra, G.K. Bansal, Ms. Geetanjali Mohan and
S.A. Syed for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H Delay condoned. Leave granted.
STATEv. DR.R.K. TANDON 997
The State is caught by inaction between deep sea and the devil and A
it seeks the help of this court for its retrieval to salvage from the predica-
ment. From the record, it is seen that 2056 posts of Provincial Medical
Service (PMS) cadre doctors were filled up from 1961-62 onwards by ad
hoc appointments for a period of one year or till the regularly selected
candidates from Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (PSC) are
appointed, whichever is earlier. In 1971, the PSC, though made the selec-
B
tion and recommended the names of certain candidates for regular ap-
pointment, no appointmetns were made of those candidates. Similarly, the
Government had sent requisition in their letter dated 23.12.77 requesting
further selection and the PSC recommended 1703 candidates for appoint-
ment. In the meanwhile, some of the ad hoc appointees approached the c
High Court and sought for, and the Court directed the regtularisation of
their services with effect from the dates of their initial appointment, against
which orders the State filed appeals in this court. This court in SLP(C)
13480/92 and batch held that since they had put in more than 20 years of
service, denying them 20 years seniority in service was unjust. Consequent- D
ly, when the State attempted to regularise the service of all ad hoc
employees from their respective dates of appointments, the direct recruits
filed writ petitions and the High Court directed the Government to give
effeet to the recommendations made by the PSC confining to the can-
didates who were then serving the State. The State has filed these appeals
and seeks to have its predicaments salvaged. E

Now the question is that what would be the just principle to be
adopted in determination in inter se seniority of the unselected and
selected ad hoc employees? After hearing the learned counsel for all
parties, we are of the considered view that a just and fair solution can be F
reached.

It is settled law that all ad hoc appointments made de hors the rules
do not confer any right to permanancy or seniority. They acquire the rights
only from the date of their regular appointment according to rules. If,
however, the initial apointments are according to rules, though on ad hoc G
or temporary basis, then the seniority would be counted from the dates of
initial appointment. The ad hoc appointments here were de hors the rules.
It would thus be clear that though the doctors have put in more than 33
years, they are ad hoc hands. All would not get seniority from the respec-
tive dates of appointments. It is seen that some of the doctors have retired H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A and some had the benefit of direction given by the courts to regularise their
services with. effect from the dates on which they were appointed and the
orders have become final. So, they are entitled to count their seniority from
the respective dates of initial appointments.

From among the rest of the doctors, since the PSC had notified,
B selected and recommended the names of candidates in the year 1972, State
Goverrun:ent is directed to make their appointment in the order fo merit
determined by the PSC. The State Government is directed to appoint them
with effect from the date on which the State Government had received the
(
merit list from the PSC and they be placed below the candidates whose rr-·
C appointment were upheld by the Courts or Service Tribunal and became
final.

As to· the candidates whose names were recommended by the PSC
in three installments - first on 23.12.77, second on 16.6.78 and the final list
D on 10.5;79, the State Government is directed to appoint them in the order
of merit in the respective lists~ The seniority of the officers so appointed
would be as per the determination of the PSC in the respective lists. They
would be appointed with effect from the dates on which the State Govern-
ment had received the respective lists and they must be deemed to have
been regularly appointed from those dates. They would be placed below
E 1972 selectees. Rest of the candidates, who were not selected but are still
continuing in service, would be placed below the last of the 3rd list and
their seniority is directed to be determined with effect from the date of the
receipt of the list dated 10.5.79. Among the non-selectees, the date on
which the list dated May 10, 1979 ·was received by the State Government
F would be the cut-off date and taking into consideration of the respective
dates of appointments as on that date and if made thereafter, seniority will
be counted from those respective dates. Rule of reservation, if applied, and
the candidates were selected accordingly, their seniority vis-a-vis the
general candidates would be according to the roster maintained by the
State Governinent. .
G
It is on record that some of these ad hoc doctors have retired on
attaining the age of superannuation. In respect of them, there shall be a
to
direction notionally treat them to be regularly appointed from respective.
dates of initial appointment only for the purpose of giving them pensionary
H and retiral benefits admissible according to relevant rules. This should not
I
STATEv. DR.R.K. TANDON 999
be reckoned for inter se seniority among the temporary or ad hoc doctors A
appointed in the service.

The State Government is directed to fix the inter se seniority within
a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order and on
fixation of seniority, they are directed to release the pension and other
terminal benefits to the retired doctors within a period of two months B
thereafter.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, parties
are directed to bear their own costs.

S.L.P. 9430/1995 (CC 22831) c
Permission to file SLP is granted. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in the light of the above judgment.

T.N.A Appeal allowed.

-~·