UNION OF INDIA Vs. DEVENDRA VIR SAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The respondent was appointed in the North-Eastern Railway as Assistant Medical Officer on an ad hoc basis on 20/7/1985. In the case of Dr A. K. Jain v. Union of India this court, by its judgment and order dated 24/9/1987, directed regularisation of the services of Assistant Medical Officers or Assistant Divisional Medical Officers appointed in the North-Eastern Railway on an ad hoc basis up to 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 commission. As a result of this judgment, Assistant Medical Officers who hadbeen appointed on an ad hoc basis up to 1/10/1984 were regularised after examination of their service record by the Union public service commission. The respondent herein was appointed on 20/7/1985. Hence he was not entitled to the benefit of the judgment of this court in Dr A. K. Jain case.

(3.) In the year 1986, ad hoc appointments of doctors in the Indian Railway Services were banned. The Railways, however, decided to give the benefit of regularisation to Assistant Medical Officers who were appointed ad hoc after 1/10/1984 but before November 1986 provided they were found suitable by the Union public service commission. For this purpose, it requested the Union public service commission to hold a special selection and recommend persons found fit for regular appointments. Accordingly the 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 lit for regularisation. 14 doctors were found unfit. Accordingly, the services of these 14 doctors were terminated. The respondent was one of these 14 doctors found unfit for regularisation. Accordingly, the appellants by their order dated 9/4/1992 terminated the services of the respondent.