DR. P.P.C. RAWANI AND ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 29-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN, N.D. OJHA, V. RAMASWAMI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
/ 
DR. P.P.C. RAW ANI AND ORS. ETC. 
v: 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 2.9, 1991 
A 
[S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
. B 
Service Law: 
Central Health Service~octors--Ad hoc appointees-Regularisation 
of-Courts' directions for preparation a/separate seniority list and crea- . C 
• tion of supernumerary posts opening promotional avenues to ad hoc ap-
pointees on par with regularly recruited doctors. 
In Civil Appeal No.3519 of 1984, filed by the appellants, who 
were appointed as doctors on ad hoc basis in. the Central Health 
Service on various dates between 1968 and 1977, praying for regu-
D 
larisation of their services with reference to their original dates of · 
llppointments, this Court, by its judgment dated 9.4.1987 and subse-
quent orders, gave certain directions. Since the Union of India could 
not implement the directions, the appellants filed the civil miscella-
neous petition for clarification of the earlier orders passed by this 
Court ·ill the Civil Appeal. Certain other doctors who fall in the 
E 
category of the appellants (ad hoc appointees) and who had not 
earlier filed writ petition before the High Court, filed writ petitions 
and intervention applications before this Court praying for the bene-
fits':~~ granted to the appellants. 
\ It was contended by the Union of India that if regularisation 
was granted to all the appellants and the like categories of doctors, 
the doctors regularly appointed in Group A may get relegated to 
secondary position in view of the fact that the appellants were ap-
pointed much earlier on ad hoc basis. ' 
fhe regularly recruited doctors, not heard earlier, also filed 
intervention applications praying that any order of regularisation 
of the appellants and the similarly situated doctors should ensure 
that their inter~sts were not prejudiced. 
The appellants and the other similarly situated doctors ex-
pressed their willingness to be considered for regular appointments 
109 
F 
G 
H 
A 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
only from 1.1.1973, this being the date on which the Group B and 
Group A services were merged together by the Government of India. 
They also agreed to give up monetary claims on account of revision 
of scales, regularisation or promotion to which they would be enti-
tled till 31.10.1991 .. 
B 
Disposing of the matters, this court, 
c 
HELD: 1. Each of the appellants will be treated as regularised 
in Group A of the Central Health Service from 1.1.1973 or the date 
of his first initial appointment in ·the service (though as an ad hoc 
Group B doctor) whichever is later. [p. 113 BJ 
. 2. In order to ensure that there is no disturbance in the sen-
iority and the promotional prospects of the regularly recruited doc-
tors there will be a separate seniority list in respect of the appel-
lants and their promotions shall be regulated by such separate sen-
ioritylist and such promotions will only be in supernumerary posts 
D 
to be created by the Government. [p. 113 B-C] 
E 
3(a). Each of the appellants will be eligible for promotion to 
. the post of Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer or fur-
ther promotional pos.ts therefrom taking into account his seniority 
in the separate seniority list. [p. 113 DJ 
(b).1'he promotion of any of the appellants to the post of Sen-
ior Medical officer, Chief Medical Officer and further promotional 
post therefrom will be on par with the promotion of the regularly 
recruited doctor who is immediately junior to the concerned appel-
lant on the basis of their respective dates of appointment, e.g. if a 
F 
regularly recruited doctor, on the basis of the seniority list main-
tained by the Department, gets a promotion as Senior Medical Of-
ficer or Chief Medical Officer or further promotion thereafter, then 
the appellant who was appointed immediately earlier to him will 
also be promoted as a Senior. Medical officer or Chief Medical Of-
ficer or further promotion therefrom (as the case may be) with 
G 
effect from the same date. [p. 113 D-F) 
H 
4. In order to avoid any conflict or any possibilities of rever-
sion, the post to which an appllant will be promoted (whether as 
Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer or on further pro-
_ 
motion therefrom) should only be to a supernumerary post. Such 
number of supernumerary posts should be created by the Govern-
-
P.P.C. RAW ANI v. U.0.1. 
111 
ment as may be necessary to give elfect to the above directions. No 
A 
/ p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.