LexDR. A.K. JAIN & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- DR. A.K. JAIN & ORS. ETC. ·ETC. A v.· UNION OF INDIA & ORS. SEPTEMBER 24, 1987 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] B Indian Railways Medical Department (Assistant Medical Officers Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1977: Rule 6--Zonal Railways-Ad hoc Assistant Medical Officers-Replacement/regularisation of--;Directions issued by Court. 1. Services of all doctors appointed as Assistant Medical Officers/ C Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on ad hoc basis upto 1.10.1984 shall be regularised in consultation with the Union Public Service Com- mission. The doctors so regularised shall be appointed as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers from the date from which they have been continuously working. [338C-D] D 2. The petitions of the Officers appointed suboequent to 1.10.1984 are dismissed. However, the Assistant Divisional Medical Officers who have been selected by the Union Public Service Commis- sion shall first be posted to the vacant posts available. H all those selected by UPSC cannot be accommodated they may be posted to the posts now held by the doctors appointed on ad hoc basis suboequent to E 1.10.1984. While making such postings the principle of 'last come, first }II' shall be obse"ed. The doctors so dlsplaced, if willing to serve in any other zone where there is a vacancy may be accommodated in. such vacancy on ad hoc basis. [338E-G I 3. All Assistant Medical Officers/Assistant Divisional Medical F Officers working on ad hoc basis shall be paid the same salary and allowances on the revised scale with effect from 1.1.1986. [338H; 339AI 4. No ad hoc Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional Medical Officer who may be working in the Railways shall be replaced G by any newly appointed Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional Medical Ofticer on ad hoc basis. l339BI S. H the ad hoc doctors appointed after 1.10.1984 apply for selection by the Union Public Service Commission necessary relau- tlon in age to the extent of the period of service rendered shall be granted. [339cJ H 335 A 336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 1 S.C.R. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 822 of 1987 etc. etc. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution) India. Gobind Mukhoty, P.P. Rao, M.C. Bhandare, Surya Kant, V. B Shekhar, M.A. Chinnaswamy, C.K. Sucharita, Ms. Malini Poduval, Raj Kumar Gupta, P.C. Kapur and S.S. Tewari for the Petitioners. c D.N. Dwivedi, R.B. Mishra, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Ms. A. Subhashini, Y.P. Rao, B.D. Sharma, Shrinath Singh and K.K. Gupta for the Respondents. Supreme Court Editorial Note-Statement of Facts The petitioners in their Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenged the action of the Respondents in terminating their services as 'ad-hoc' Assistant Medical Officers on the plea that D they were 'ad-hoc' appointees and replacing them by freshly recruited Assistant Divisional Medical Officers, and prayed for the issue of a direction to the Respondents to treat the appointments of the petition- ers as regular with effect from the dates of their respective appoint- ments as 'ad-hoc' Assistant Medical Officers and to assign them conse- quent seniority in the grades. E It was contended by the petitioners that they were appointed as 'ad-hoc-' Assistant Medical Officers (Class II) during the period August 1983 to July 1986 in the South-Eastern, North East Frontier and Northern Zones of the Indian Railways and had been officiating in the said grade for periods ranging upto four years. Although the initial F appointments were for a period of six months, the respondents had extended their tenure from time to time. Instead of regularising the services of the petitioners and conferring the benefits of seniority, the respondents had threatened to terminate their services as and when the UPSC selected Assistant Divisional Medical Officers and they joined the service. In the South-Central Zone of the Railways, the G petitioners contended that the Respondents had in fact by an Order No. 450/86 dated 11.11.1986, terminated the services of eleven officiating 'ad-hoc' Assistant Medical officers as they had not availed of the three chances stated in their appointment order for selection through UPSC. It was alleged that neither the Indian Railways Medical Department (Assistant Medical Officers Class II) Recruitment Rules H 1977 nor the earlier Rules of 1967 provided for 'ad-hoc' appointment \ - A.K. JAIN v. U.0.1. 337
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.