UNION OF INDIA Vs. CYAN PRAKASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Dr Cyan Prakash Singh was offered on 28/09/1984 an appointment on ad hoc temporary basis to a post of Assistant Medical Officer (Class II) in the North Eastern Railway for the period of six months or till the candidates selected by the Union public service commission (UPSC) joined the railways, whichever was earlier. Pursuant to that offer, the respondent was issued an appointment order on 1/10/1984 and he joined duty on 9/10/1984. While the respondent continued to work as an ad hoc Assistant Medical Officer, the decision of this court in A. K. Jain (Dr) v. Union of India was rendered on 24/09/1987 directing regularisation of the services of all doctors appointed either as Assistant Medical Officers or as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on ad hoc basis up to 1/10/1984, in the manner indicated therein. The respondent was not treated to be a doctor falling within the category indicated in Dr A. K. Jain since his appointment was effective from 9/10/1984 when he had joined duty. The respondent claimed to be governed by the direction given in Dr A. K. Jain but his representation was rejected by the Railway Board. It appears that the Railway Board decided to regularise the services even of those doctors appointed between 1/10/1984 and November 1986 who were found suitable by the UPSC after an interview and screening of their service record. In all 105 such doctors including the respondent were considered for regularisation on this basis. Out of them, 14 including the respondent were found unfit by the UPSC for retention in service and, therefore, they were not regularised. The ad hoc service of the respondent was then terminated on 9/04/1992.

(2.) Aggrieved by his non-regularisation, the respondent filed an application before the central Administrative tribunal challenging the same. By the 1987 Supp SCC 497impugned order dated 28/03/1992, the tribunal has allowed the respondent's application taking the view that the respondent is entitled to regularisation of his ad hoc appointment on the basis of the decision of this court in Dr A. K. Jain. It has been held that the ad hoc appointment of the respondent having been made by an order dated 1/10/1984, he is governed by the direction given by this court in Dr A. K. Jain. The Union of India, being aggrieved by that decision, has preferred this appeal by special leave.

(3.) On the above facts, the question is: Whether the tribunal has correctly read the decision of this court in Dr A. K. Jain to hold that the respondent is entitled to regularisation on the basis of the direction given therein