G P SARABHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are three Writ Petitions before the Court instituted by Junior Medical Officers (Insurance) employed under the Employees' State Insurance Corporation which is a statutory Corporation concerned with the implementation of the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 5 of 1981 are Dr. G. P. Sarabhai and 65 other doctors. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petition 59 of 1981 are Dr. V. K. Sang and seven others and in Civil Writ Petition No. 95 of 1981, the petitioners are Dr. (Mrs.) Purnima and 15 others. The respondents in each case are the Union of India, certain officials of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation and the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission.

(2.) All the petitioners are qualified doctors with the requisite to training for employment as Junior Medical Officers in the Employees' State Insurance Corporation on a permanent basis. For reasons which will become apparent later, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation decided to employ doctors on a temporary basis initially. However, the selection was done in a similar manner to that which is used for making regular appointments. The Selection Committee consisted of the Medical Commissioner, the Director (Medical), the Administration (Medical) Officer and other specialists from teaching colleges. At various times the petitioners were appointed after due selection on an ad hoc basis. The appointment letters in each case stated that the maximum period of the selection was one year and it was contemplated that the selection would be regularised by the Union Public Service Commission. In each case the appointment was not to exceed one year. The initial pay was Rs. 350.00 and the scale was Rs. 350-25-500-:30.590-EB-830-35- 900. In Civil Writ Petition No. 5 of 1981, as amended, the dates of appointment of the 66 petitioners are specified. Dr. Sarabhai, petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 20th Sept., 1972. Petitioner No. 2. Dr. (Mrs.) S. P. Chadha was also appointed in 1972. These two have crossed the efficiency bar in 1978 and 1979, respectively. Petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 1st Jan., 1973, and petitioner No. 4 on 9th Aug., 1974. These two have also crossed the efficiency bar in 1979 and 1980, respectively. The 5th petitioner was appointed on 16th Sept., 1974. Then a number of petitioners were appointed in 1975. About ten more petitioners were appointed in 1976. Six of them were appointed in 1977, 27 were appointed in 1978, 11 were appointed in 1979 and petitioner No. 66 was appointed on 27th March, 1980. In spite of the long period that some of the petitioners have continued to be appointed and in spite of the fact that some of them have crossed the efficiency bar, it appears that the Employees' State Insurance Corporation has continued to treat the petitioners as being appointed on an ad hoc temporary basis. It also appears that the Union Public Service Commission advertised the posts in 1979. By that time, most of the petitioners had been appointed or had remained appointed for more than one year and some had been appointed for as long as six or seven years. According to the petitioners their appointment could be temporary for only one year and after that they had to be regularised by the Union Public Service Commission. The steps taken by the Union Public Service Commission to make a fresh selection under the 1979 Regulation have been challenged. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot be again subject to selection and ab initio recruitment as if they have been never in the service of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation.

(3.) Particularly, learned counsel has stressed the fact that the period of temporary appointment of one year was allowed to expire without any regularisation and thereafter the petitioners or most of them continued to serve in the Corporation without any further action being taken. Also, the petitioners have continued to get their increments during this period.