LexDR. CHANDRA PRAKASH AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. DECEMBER 4, 2002 [G.B. PATTANAIK, RUMA PAL AND BRIJESHKUMAR, JJ.] Service Law-Uttar Pradesh Medical Services-Doctors-Seniority-- Counting of-Held: ls to be counted from the date of their initial appointment C when made against substantive vacancy-Similarly seniority is to be determined from the date of appointment and not from the date of selection- U.P. Regulation of ad-hoc Appointments (On posts within purview .of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979-United Provinces Medical Service (Men's Branch) Rules, 1945-U.P. Medical Services (Men's Branch) Amendment Rules, 1981. D Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 141-Precedeni-Doctrine- Binding effect of-Held: Decision is followed unless the Court fzas reason to differ with the view expressed-Jn such event, the issue must be referred to a larger Bench-However, if the earlier decision has conc/ud~'<j issues in a particular set of facts in a given Iis between the same parties, such decision E cannot be reopened on the principles of res judicata except by way of an application for review. The question which arose for consideration in these writ petitions is with regard to inter se seniority between temporary appointees-writ p!titioners who had been appointed in Provisional Medical Services (PMS) prior to 1972 F against the substantive vacancies after selection by Departmental Selection Commission and candidates recommended by Public Service Commission for appointment in 1972. Candidates were also recommended in the 1977-78-79 select list, out of which some of the writ petitioners were temporarily appointed. However, they were not issued permanent appointment letters. Ther~fter, the G U.P. Regulation of ad-hoc Appointments (On posts within purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 were issued. ad-hoc appointees could not count their services which they may have rendered earlier as temporary appointees. Doctors who had been appointed temporarily were sought to be regularised under the 1979 Rules after a period o_f probation. In 1983 seniority list was published and candidates who had been recommended by the PSC for H 574 . .. DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE 575 appointment in 1972 were placed at the top followed by all the 'temporary A appointees'. Select List of 1977-78-79 was also cancelled. One Dr. Mathur along with others temporarily appointed challenged the decision taken by the State Government to treat them as ad"hoc appointees under 1979 Rules. High Court held ·that the petitioners could not be treated as having been appointed on ad hoc basis and that the 1979 Rules did not B apply to them. Consequently their seniority was not to be fixed from the date of their regularisation under the 1979 Rules, but from the date of their initial appointment in the cadre. Aggrieved respondent filed SLP which was dismissed. In other writ petitions following Mathur's case similar order was passed. As a consequence of the dedsion in Mathur 's case it was laid down C that person appointed temporarily against substantive vacancies were entitled to rank above any other appointees who were subsequently appointed based on 1972 Select List or 1977-78-79 Select List. However, in subsequent decision-Tandon 's case 1977-78-79 Select List was revived and it was held that the candidates selected in 1972 would become senior to all other ad-hoc appointees, the candidates recommended in 1977-78-79 List would rank below D 1972 appointees and the non-selectees would be given seniority from the date of their appointment under the 1979 Rules. Pursuant to this, the seniority list was published. Thereafter aggrieved party filed writ petitions with regard to the conflict in Tandon 's case and Mathur 's case in this Court. Constitution Bench set aside the decision in Tandon 's case on the ground that it was in E conflict with the larger Bench decision (Mathur 's case). However, the Bench did not decide the inter se right of parties or correctness of Mathur 's case and remitted the matter to three-Judge Bench. Hence the present writ petitions. Writ petitioners contended that they are entitled to seniority from the p date of their initial appointments on the basis of principles laid down in Mathur's case; that the select lists prepared in 1972 and 1977-78-79 are not available with the respondents; that the respondents had not issued any letters or regular appointment t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.