Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Dr. A.K. Jain judgment does not extend to officers appointed after 1 October 1984; therefore, the UPSC‑screening process governs regularisation and, having been found unfit, the respondent’s termination was lawful.

Summary

Dr. Devendra Vir Sahi was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer on an ad‑hoc basis on 20 July 1985, after the cut‑off date of 1 October 1984 prescribed in Dr. A.K. Jain’s judgment. The Union of India, following a policy that required UPSC screening for ad‑hoc officers appointed between 1 October 1984 and November 1986, had UPSC evaluate 119 doctors; 105 were deemed fit for regularisation and 14, including the respondent, were found unfit and consequently terminated. The respondent challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that he should have been considered for regularisation on the basis of his confidential service reports, as in Dr. A.K. Jain’s case, and that his services should not be terminated pending such consideration. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Dr. A.K. Jain’s judgment applies only to officers appointed up to 1 October 1984 and that the UPSC‑screening process for post‑cut‑off appointments was proper; since the respondent was found unfit, his termination was lawful. The Court allowed the Union’s appeal and set aside the Tribunal’s order.

Issues considered

Whether the directions in Dr. A.K. Jain & Ors. v. Union of India (1987) apply to Assistant Medical Officers appointed after 1 October 1984.
Whether the termination of services of an ad‑hoc Assistant Medical Officer found unfit by the UPSC is valid.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in directing that the respondent be considered for regularisation solely on the basis of his confidential reports.

Subjects

regularisationad hoc appointmentUnion Public Service Commissionconfidential service reportstermination of servicerailway servicesservice law

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
DR. DEVENDRA VIR SAHi ...
APRIL 18, 1995

B [J.S. VERMA AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.)

SeTVice Law: Rai/ways---Assistant Medical Officers-Appointment on
ad hoc basis--Regularisatiorr-Screening by Union Public SeTVice Commis- ,...
sioti-criterii:r-Scrutiny of seTVice records as also inteTView-Procedure fol- -....
c /owed-Validity of.

By its judgment and order dated September 24, 1987 In Dr. A.K Jain
& Ors. v. Union of India, (1987] Supp. SCC 497 this Court directed
regularisation of the services of Asslsta11t Medkal Oftlcers appointed In
the North Eastem'Rallways on ad hoc basis upto 1.10.1984. The regularlsa-
D tlon was done on the basis of evaluatlo11 by Union Public Service Commis·

-
sion of their work and concluct as see11 from their cOllfldelltlal reports.

The respondellt W11S appol11ted as Assistant Medical OIDcu OD 20th
July, 1985. Ad hoc appoi11tmenb of doctors In the Indian RalhraY Seniee
E were ba11ned In 1981i. It was however decided that benefit of regularlsadon
be given to those who were appointed ad hoc 11,n or after 1.10.1984, but
before November, 1986 provided they were tonnd snltable by the Union
Public Service Commission. 119 doctors were scnened and 1115 found lb
for regularisation. 14 doctors Including the respondent were filuud unfJI
and their services were terminated.
F
Respondent approached Ifie Central Adiulnlstrati'Ye Tilbunahnd It
held that the respondent should have been considered for regularisation
only on the basis of his Confidential Reports as was done In the case of
Assistant Medical Officers who were covered by the judginelat of this Court
in Dr. A.K. Jain's case. It also held that until the respondent's case was
G
considered for regularisation on this basis, his services should not be
terminated.

Hence this appeal by the Uniou of India. ,4.
H Allowing the ap)ieal, this Court
426
U.0.1. v. DEVENDRA VIR SAHI[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.) 427

HELD: I.I. The respondent was appointed after 1.10.1984 and hence A
he Ca!'ln~t get the benefit or the directions given in Dr. A.K. Jain's case. In
respect or Assistant Medical Officers who have been appointed after
1.10.1984, the appellants decided to regularise the seM'ices or those doctors
who were considered suitable for regularisation by the Union Public
Service Commission. The Union Public SeM'ice Commission took into B
account the seM'ice records or the Assistant Medical Officers and also
lnteM'lewed them in order to decide their sultabilitY. _rilfregularisation.
There Is no reason for finding fault with this process ·of ~~ilufari.sation.
[428'H, 429-A, BJ
1.2. For regularisation, the respondent had to be found fit by the
Union Public SeM'ice Commission. Since he was found unfit, he could C
have no grievance against the termination of his seM'ices in these cir-
cumstances. [429-F]

Union of India and Ors. v. Dr. Gyan Prakash Singh, JT (1993) 5 SC
681, held applicable. D
Dr. A.K lain and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] Supp. SCC
~ 497, held Inapplicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4470 of
~ E
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.92 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A. No. 579 of 1992.

Ms. Kitty Kumararnangalam and V.K. Verma for the Appellants.
F
A.K. Sinha and K.K. Gupta for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Leave granted.

The respondent was appointed in the North Eastern Railways as G
Assistant Medical Officer on an ad !toe basis on 20.7.1985. In the case of
Dr. A.K lain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1987) Supp. SCC 497, this
Court, by its judgment and order dated 24.9.1987, directed regularisation
of the service of Assistant Medical Officers or Assistant Divisional Medial
Officers appointed in the North Eastern Railways on an ad hoc basis upto H
, . J
428 St.:PREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 3 S.C.R.

A 1.10.1984. This Court directed such regularisation on the basis of evaluation
of their work and conduct as seen from their Confidential Reports. Such
evaluation was directed to be done by the Union Public Service Commis-
sion. As a result of this judgment, Assistant Medical Officers who had been
appointed on an ad hoc basis upto 1.10.1984 were regularised after ex-
amination of their service record by the Union Public Service Commission.
B The respondent herein was appointed on 20th of July, 1985. Hence he was
not entitled to the benefit of the judgment of this Court in DrA.K. Jain's
case (supra).

In the year 1986, ad hoc appointments of doctors in the Indian
C Railway Services were banned. The Railways, however, decided to give the
benefit of regularisation to Assistant Medical Officers who were appointed
ad !toe after 1.10.1984 but before November 1986 provided they were found
suitable by the Union Public Service Commissi.on. For this purpo~e, it
requested the Union Public Service Commission to hold a special selection
D and recommend persons found fit for regular appointments. Accordingly
Union Public Service Commission screened and interviewed 119 doctors
who had been appointed on an ad hoc basis during this period. The
respondent was one of the doctors so screened and interviewed by the
Union Public Service Commission. The Union Public Service Commission
...
found 105 ad hoc doctors fit for regularisation. 14 doctors were found unfit.
E Accordingly, the services of these 14 doctors were terminated. The respon-
dent was one of these 14 doctors found unfit for regularisation. Accord-
ingly, the appellants by their order dated 9.4.1992 terminated the services
of the respondent.

1· The respondent challenged the termination of his services before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. The Tribunal by its
impugned judgment and order has held that the respondent should have
been considered for regularisation only on the basis of his Confidential
J
Reports as was done in the case of Assistant Medical Officers who were
covered by the judgment of this Court in Dr. A.K. Jain's case (supra). The
G Tribunal further held that until the respondent's case was considered for
regularisation on this basis, his services should not be terminated. The
appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the order of the
Tribunal.

H The respondent was appointed after 1.10.1984 and hence he cannot
U.0.I. v. DEVENDRA VJR SAHi !MRS. SUJATA V. MANO HAR. J.] 429

get the benefit of the directions given in Dr. A.K. Jain's case (supra). In A
respect of Assistant Medical Officers who have been appointed after
1.10.1984, the appellants decided to regularise the services of those doctors
who were considered suitable for regularisation by the Union Public Ser-
vice Commission. The Union Public Service Commission took into account
the service record of the Assistant Medical Officers and also interviewed
them in order to decide their suitability for regularisation. We do not see
B
any reason for finding fault with this process of regularisation.

In the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Dr. Gyan Prakash Singh, JT
(1993) 5 SC 681 the respondent was appointed as Assistant Medical Officer
on 1.10.1984. This Court held that he was not entitled to the benefit of the (
judgment in Dr. A.K Jain's case (supra) as the judgment governed tht cases
of Assistant Medical Officers appointed before 1.10.1984. The respondent
therein was also given a chance for regularisation along with other Assis-
tant Medical Officers appointed on or after 1.10.1984 and before Novem-
ber 1986. He was one of the 14 Assistant Medical Officers not
recommended for regularisation by the Union Public Service Commission
in 1992. Like the respondent in the present case, his services were also
terminated on 9.4.1992. This Court observed that the direction for manner
of regularisation contained in the judgment in Dr. A.K. Jain's case (supra)
was not meant to benefit any ad hoc appointee who was not working on
the post of Assistant Medical Officer on 1.10.1984. The Court further held
that the respondent therein, not being so entitled, his claim for regularisa-
tion could have been based only on the ground available to an ad hoc
appointee during the period between 1.10.1984 and November 1986. For
regularisation, the respondent had to be found fit by the Union Public
Service Commission. Since he was found unfit, he could have no grievance
against the termination of his services in these circumstances.

The case of the respondent before us is similar to the case of the
respondent in Dr. Gyan Prakash Singh's case (supra).

The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench is set aside. In the circumstan-
ces, however, there will be no order as to costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.