LexDR. S.P. KAPOOR ETC. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• .. .... 1043 DR. S.P. KAPOOR ETC. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. ETC. November 2, 1981 [ S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] Central Health Service Rules 1963, Rules 7A and BA and Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules 1974, Rules 9(4), and IO(a)(iU)-Union territory of Himachal Pradesh-Health Department manned by officers of Central Health Service-Union Territory becoming a Stat~Formation of Himachal Pradesh Health Servic~- 01/icers exercising option to continue in the new Heal1h Service-Determination of seniority-basis-Not date of induction into Central Health Service-Only under Rule JO( a) (iii) of State Rules. Service Rule not providing category with which Roster to be started- Government direction supplementing the Rule that Roster be started with category of Specialists-Government action whether valid. A B c 0 Annual Confidential Report-Initiated by an officer who is junior and also an aspirant for promotion to higher post-Such confidential report whether valid- Cons!deration by Departmental Promation Committee-Effect of. E Services and Dismissals-State Health Service-Officers holding posts on ad hoc basis from 1973-Seniority list finalised on November 2, 1979-Departm,n~ ta/ Promotion Committee constituted on November 3, 1979-Promotions made and orders of appointment issued on the same day-Post haste manner of selec~ tion and appointment-Effect of . The Central Health Service was constituted by the Central Government and the Central Health Service Rules 1963 came into force wilh effect from 15~5-1963. These Rules were amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules 1966. Before the Punjab Reorganisation Act came into force the State of Punjab had its own Health Service known as the PCMS with two grades, Grade J and Grade II. After the Punjab Reorganisation Act came into force, and the Central Health Service was formed, some persons belonging to the PCMS and some persons working as Medical Officers in hospitals run by Local Bodies were induc- ted into that Service after they had exercised their oplion to be inducted therein The petitioners and contesting employees-respondents in \'.'rit petition nos. 2 0f 1980 and 288 of 1979 filed in the High Court had been inducted into the Central Health Service after they had exercised their option. When the Himachal Pradesh Union Territory was in existence, its Health Department was manned by Officers of the Central. Health Service, but after Himachal Pradesh became a full fledged State, the H1!Dacba) Health Servic~ was constituted on 24.1.1974 . . . ' ' ' G H A B c D E F G H 1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] I S,C.R under the Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules which catne into force on 19.1.74. The members of the Central Health Service serving in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Union Territory were asked to exercise their option to conti- nue in the new Himachal Pradesh Health Service. The writ petitioners and the contesting employees-respondents exercised their option to continue in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service. The Appellant in C. A. No. 2384 of 1980, who was one of the petitioners in writ petition No. 288 of 1979 contended before the High Court that his reversion from the post of Deputy Director of Health Services to which post he was appointed on a regular basis was void. The petitioner in writ petition No. 2 of 1980 claimed that the seniority list of Speci:ilists prepared by the State Government was contrary lo the rules and that the appointment of the appellant in C.A. No. 2104 of 1980 and of respondents 2 and 4 in writ petition 288 of 1979 as Deputy Directors of Health Services was contrary to the provi- sions of the 1974 Rules. It was contended that 1he appointments were also vitiated because : (D the Departn1ental Promotion Committee constituted for making appointment was not properly constituted because one of the members of the committee the Principal Secretary to the Ch;ef Minister was unauthorised- ly inducted into the Committee in place of the Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, and (ii) that their confidential reports were written by an officer junior to them and who was an aspirant for promotion to the higher post. The appointments or the Director or Health Services and the two Deputy Directors having been made in haste immediately after the senio- rity list was issued rendered the appointments void. The petitioner
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.