R K GOYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8914 of 1983.

(2.) In February 1981, the Director of Medical and Health Services U. P. , invited applications for appointment as lecturers on ad hoc basis in different disciplines in Medical Colleges of the State. The appellant and respondent No. 4 applied for the post of lecturer in Orthopedics. Both of them were interviewed by the Section Board on 3-9-81. The Director of Medical Education prepared a penal of selected candidates and recommended their names to the Government for appointment. In February 1982, the Public Service Commission, U. P. (PSC for short) gave an advertisement inviting applications for the post of lecturers in Orthopedics and other specialities in different medical colleges of the State. A Masters Degree in the speciality with three yearss teaching experience including one years teaching experience after post-graduation was the minimum required qualification. This time also the appellant and respondent No. 4 applied for the same post. They were interviewed on 17-5-83 appellants candidature was cancelled as it was noticed that he did not possess any teaching experience. The PSC could not give its recommendations on account of filing of several writ petitions and Court orders. Under these circumstances, the Government by an order dated 2-6-83 appointed the appellant as a lecturer in Orthopaedics in the Medical College at Agra for one year or till the appointment of a properly selected comdidate. The Government terminated his service on 17-4-84 as his appointment was ad hoc and for a period of one year only. It appears that before the order of termination could be served upon him, he filed writ petition No. 7852 of 1984 in the Allahabad High Court and obtained an order of injunction restraining the authorities from terminating his services. In view of this interim order the State Government passed an order on 23-6-84 continuing him as lecturer till further orders. Later on the appellant applied for regularisation of his services. On 30-10-89, the State Government, acting on the recommendations made by the Section Committee constituted under Rule 4(3) of the U. P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (on Posts within the purview of the PSC) Rules 1979 regularised all those person who were appointed on ad hoc basis uptill 1st October, 1986 in various departments of the State Medical Colleges. Their seniority was to be fixed later on under Rule 7 of the said rules. The ad hoc appointment of the appellant thus came to be regularised and he was given seniority from 7-8-89. In view of these developments the appellant allowed his writ petition to be dismissed on 18-9-91. Soon after the Government had appointed the appellant as a lecturer on ad hoc basis respondent No. 4 filed Writ Petition No. 8914 of 1983 in the Allahabad High Court challenging the same. As the appellants services were regularised during the pendency of that petition, respondent No. 4 amended the petition and also challenged the said order of regularisation passed in 1989.

(3.) The High Court accepted the qualification as stated in the advertisement given by the PCS as correct. As the Appellant did not possess three years teaching experience, the High Court held that the State Government could not have appointed him as lecturer even on ad hoc basis. The High Court further held that as his initial ad hoc appointment was bad his services could not have been regularised by the Government even under the 1978 regularisation rules. The High Court was also of the view that as the interim order obtained by him and under which the Government had continued him as lecturer got vacated automatically on dismissal of his petition, the order passed by the Government on 17-4-1984 terminating his services got revived and for that reason also his appointment could not have been regularised by the Government under the 1979 rules. The High Court also held that the conduct of the appellant in obtaining the interim relief and then getting the writ petition dismissed was not bona fide. The High Court, therefore, declared the ad hoc appointment of the appellant made on 2-6-83 and regularisation of his services under the order dated 13-10-89 as bad and quashed the same. The High Court, however, did not grant the prayer made by respondent No. 4 that he should be appointed as lecturer w. e. f. 2-6-83 and be given seniority and consequential benefits from that date.