UNION OF INDIA Vs. LALITA S RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in S. L. P. (C) No. 18846/99.

(2.) The determination of inter se seniority between the two categories of doctors engaged by the Railway Administration is the subject-matter of dispute in these batch of cases. It would be necessary to state the facts in a greater detail in view of the chequard history of the case. Prior to 1986, normal recruit to the post of Assistant Medical Officers under the Railway Administration was being made through a process of selection by the Union Public Service Commission. There was no statutory rule framed for the purpose of recruitment. Government of India in the Ministry of Railway through the Railway Board had, however, permitted the General Managers to recruit Assistant Medical Officers in Class II on ad hoc basis for a period not exceeding six months and such power had been conferred in the public interest as the process of selection through Union Public Service Commission was taking some time. The ad hoc recruits, however, were advised to apply to Union Public Service Commission in response to the advertisement to be issued by the Commission for getting regular appointment. The administrative instructions dated 21st May, 1966, unequivocally indicated that the ad hoc appointees should be made known that their services would stand terminated as soon as candidates selected by the Commission become available. The aforesaid Government Order also provided that the ad hoc appointees could be retained beyond six months with prior approval of the Board. Some time in the year 1986 several such doctors having failed in their attempt to get selected through the Union Public Service Commission apprehended termination of their services, therefore, a batch of writ petitions were filed in this Court under Article 32, which stood disposed of by judgment dated 24th September, 1987, Dr. A. K. Jain vs. Union of India, reported in 1987 Supp SCC 497. By the time these writ petitions were taken up for consideration a set of Recruitment Rules have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, called The Indian Railway Medical Department (Assistant Medical officers Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as "The Recruitment Rules"), and the said Rule never contemplated of any ad hoc appointment. Even under the provisions of the Railway Establishment Code, which governs the recruitment of the Group 'A' service in the various departments of Railways, as indicated in Section 205, no ad hoc recruitment was contemplated, and as such, the ad hoc appointments were in exigencies of service to meet a particular contingency under the Administrative Orders of the Board. This Court disposed of the batch of cases with following directions :-

(3.) These Civil Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.