LexDR. P. P. C. RAWANI & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 61 DR. P. P. C. RAWANI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Contempt Petition (C) No.169 of 2005) NOVEMBER 14, 2008 [S.B. SINHA, R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MAR.KANDEY . KATJU, JJ.] Service Law: Seniority and promotion - Regularization ofservices of doctors appointed on ad-hoc basis - Supreme Courl vide its order dated 9.4.87 directing regularization and laying down A B c the manner of determining inter se seniority among such D regularised doctors - Appointment of doctors on regular basis - Filing of petitions by regularized and regularly appointed doctors for protection of their respective interest with regard to promotion - Supreme Court vide its order dated 29.10.1991 directing Union of India to draw separate seniority E list and give promotion in terms of directions contained in the order - Non-compliance - Contempt Petition and clarification petitions filed by both the parlies - Held: Vide Orders dated 9.4.1987 and 29.10.1991, this Courl made it clear that regularized doctors cannot steal a march over the regularly appointed doctors - To protect the interest of F regularly appointed doctors in regard to seniority and promotion, respondent was directed to prepare separate seniority lists of regularized and regularly appointed doctors - The clarification order did not mean that if one regularly appointed doctor was promoted all regularized doctors G appointed earlier to his appointment should be promoted to higher post by creating supernumerary posts - Such an interpretation would lead to an absurd result - Having regard to different interpretation put forth by regular doctors and 61 H 62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. A regularized doctor, it cannot be said that respondents disobeyed order of this Court by their action or inaction - Interpretation of Statutes - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 1 The issue arose for consideration in these contempt B petitions was about the interpretation of the order of the Supreme Court dated 9.4.1987 and clarificatory order dated 29.10.1991 in earlier round of litigation. Earlier, while disposing of the Civil appeal and the Writ Petition filed by the doctors appointed on adhoc basis, the Supreme Court directed respondent-Union of India, to C regularize the services of these doctors from the date of · their initial appointm.ent and to determine seniority inter se among them with reference to the dates of their initial appointments. Later, Union of India filed an application for modification/clarification of earlier order putting forth D some difficulties in ill)plementing the order dated 9.4.1987 as it felt that several. regularly appointed doctors might be relegated to secondary position. The regularly appointed doctors a!so filed an application praying for protection of their il!terest. The Supreme Court vide its E order dated 29.10.1991 directed the respondent to prepare separate l!_eniority lists of regularized and regularly appointed .doctors so that there would be no disturbance of the seniority of the regularly appointed doctors and laid down the manner of promotions Contempt Petition was filed by the regularized doctors alleging non-complia,nce of th~ order of the Court by the F respondent. Regul'!rly appointed doctors also filed contempt petition contending that if the clarificatory order dated 29.10.1991 is construed In the manner put forth by G the regularized doctors, it would adversely affect their seniority and also promotional prospects which were specifically protected in terms of directions Nos.(2) and (4) of the order dated 29.10.1991 issued by the Court. Disposing of the Contempt Petitions and H ... DR. P. P. C. RAWANI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & 63 ORS. applications for clarification and modification, the Court A HELD: 1.1. The genesis of the problem relates back to the order of this Court dated 9.4.1987. Two things are evident from the said order. First is that this Court, in passing the said order, did not adjudicate upon the rights or claims of the ad hoc appointees on merits. The matters B were disposed merely recording the submission of the respondents that all ad hoc appointees were regularized or will be regularized. The ·second is that the direction relating to the seniority of regularized doctors in that order, is not with reference to regularized doctors vis-a- C vis regularly appointed doctors, but only inter-se among the ad hoc doctors who w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.