DR. ANURADHA BODI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS .

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 08-05-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. ANURADHA BODI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
, . .. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS . 
MAYS,1998 
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Seniority-Appointment made on the posts of General 
Duty Medical Officer Grade II between 1982 to 1985 on ad hoc basis Stop 
gap arrangement and not as per the Rules as applicable to such c 
appointments-Services regularised as per the rules on the recommendation 
of UPSC with effect from a much later date-Ad hoc period prior to the 
regularisation counting of seniority-Held, corollary in conclusion (A) in 
Direct Recruit's case, applicable to such appointment and therefore, ad hoc 
period can not be counted to determine seniority of such appointees-Delhi 
Municipal Corporation Health Service Recruitment Regulations, 1982-Delhi D 
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, Section 98--Constitution of India, Articles 
32, 14 and 16. 
Petitioners were appointed by Respondent No. 1 as General Duty Medical 
Officer Grade II between 1982 and 1985. The appointment letters issued 
categorically stated that such appointments would be purely on ad hoc basis E 
as a stop gap arrangement for a period of six months or till such time the 
posts were filled up on regular basis through Union Public Service 
Commission ("UPSC") or till further orders whichever was earlier; that ad 
hoc appointments could be terminated at any time by the competent authority 
without assigning any reason whatsoever and without giving any prior notice; F 
and that appointment would not confer any right whatsoever on the appointees 
- " 
for regular/permanent appointment; and that the appointees were advised for 
regular appointment to pass the UPSC examination in normal course in the 
direct competition. 
The Delhi Municipal Corporation Health Service Requirement G 
Regulations, 1982 (the "Rules"), stipulated that the posts in question to be 
filled up through UPSC. Petitioners were not selected through UPSC but 
they claimed to have been selected by a high - profile selection Committee 
-..\ 
consisting of Deputy Co.mmissioner and Director (Personnel) ofMCD, Medical 
-=--
Superintendents of the Hospital concerned and two Specialists in Clinical 
Medicine from two renowned Hospital. 
H 
269 
A 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1998] 3 S.C.R. 
Though the appointment of the petitiol)ers were initially for a period 
of six months, they were being continued periodically by subsequen~ orders 
issued by the first respondent. The petitioners were making representation 
to regularise their services even without appearing before the UPSC but in 
vain. 
B 
Petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court in 1991 
praying that their services be treated as regular from their respective date 
of their induction into the service and to consider them for promotion to 
Grade I; that their initial appointment be treated as regular appointment with 
effect from the date of their induction to their service and to grant them 
C consequential seniority; that the petitioners should be absorbed first before 
offering the existing vacancies to new recruits. The said petition was disposed 
of by this Court on the ground that the petitioners were called for interview 
by the UPSC and that they were not entitled to be regularised even though 
they were not selected. The petitioners were thereafter selected by UPSC and 
appointed on regular basis by the first respondent with effect from the date 
D UPSC recommended the appointment 
Petitioners filed the present writ petition claiming that they should 
have been appointed on regular basis with effect from the initial dates of 
appointments. They claimed seniority with all consequential benefits. 
E 
It was contended by the petitioner that their services from the initial 
F 
appointment till the date of regularisation had to be taken into consideration 
for purposes of fixing their seniority placing reliance on Direct Recruits 
case(*). 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD: I.I. There can be no doubt that the petitioners fall within the 
corollary in Conclusion (A) of Direct Recruits case (*). The orders of 
appointment issued to the petitioners are very specific in their terms. Though 
the recruitment rules came into force on 06.08.1982, the appointments were 
not made in accordance therewith. They were ad hoc and made as a stopgap 
G arrangement. The orders themselves indicated that for the purpose of regular 
appointment the petitioners were bound to pass at the U

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.