J.S. CHHABRA ETC. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 28-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI

Judgment (excerpt)

J.S. CHHABRA ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 28, 1996 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
M.P. Regulation of Ad hoc Appointment Rules, 1986-Regularisation 
under-Of ad-hoc CMO (Lecturer Grade) having teaching experience-To the 
post of lecturel'-Recruitment to the post generally by direct selec-
tion-Qualification for both the posts same-Whether declaration of CMOs. 
as Lecturers and Regularisation by govemment is in contravention to Recmit-
ment Rules-Held, the action of Govemment in regularising the Service of 
CM Os. cannot be regarded as improper or illegal. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Seniority--Detennination of-Regularisation of ad-hoc CMO (Lecturer 
Grade) as Lecturers under Regularisation Rule-Regularisation accepted by 
CM()-ffeld, having accepted the regularisation, he could not have been given 
seniority prior to date of regularisation-Benefit on the basis of continuous 
officiation could not have been given-It would be not fair and just to give E 
seniority from the date of declaration. 
The Government not being able to appoint lectnrers selected by M.P. 
Public Service Commission, and with a view to improve the casualty 
services in hospitals attached to medical colleges, upgraded the post of F 
casualty Medical Officer (Lecturer Grade) (hereinafter called CMO) by 
appointing 21 lecturers on and post of CMO on ad-hoc basis, vide G.O. 
dated 11.8.1971. The said appointment was subject to selection by M.P. 
Public Service Commission. The qualification for the posts of CMO and 
Lecturer were the same. Respondent 'T' was one of the 21 candidates 
appointed. After the appointment, he appeared before Public Service Com- G 
mission for selection in 1977 and 1981, but could not succeed. On 4.4.1987, 
the appointment above-mentioned was regularised under M.P. Regularisa-
tion Ad-hoc appointment Rules and on 21.7.1989 the Government passed 
order declaring them lecturers. Respondent 'T' accepted the regularisation 
and did not challenge the validity of the regularisation Roles. 
H 
313 
A 
B 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
The name of respondent 'T' did not appear in Gradation List dated 
9.6.1989 and his previous service as CMO was not counted for considering 
bis seniority. Therefore, the respondent 'T' made representation to the 
government and then filed Writ petition before High Court seeking the 
relief that his seniority should be counted from 11.8.1971. The Writ Peti-
tion was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal. 
The appellant herein intervened in the above Application. He also 
filed separate petition challenging the recognition of the respondent 'T' 
and others as lecturers. The petition was transferred to Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal. Allowing the application of the respondent 'T' (TA 
C No. 91 of 1991), the Tribunal held that after regularisation government 
should have considered the CM Os, as full fledged lecturers and that such 
CMOs became entitled to seniority from the date of their continuous 
officiation. The application of the appellant [TA No. 75 of 1991) was 
dismissed. 
D 
The appellant filed separate appeals against both the orders and the 
State filed appeal against the order in T.A. No. 91 of 1991 before this Court. 
Appellant contended that recruitment to the post of Lecturer is by direct 
selection through M.P. Public Service Commission and it was not open to 
the State to declare CMOs. as lecturers and the regularisation is in 
E contravention of Recruitment Rules, and that the regularised CM Os could 
not have been given seniority from the date earlier than 21.7.1989. The 
State contended that the respondent 'T' has rightly been given seniority 
from 4.4.1987. 
Dismissing the appeal of the appellant against order in T.A. No. 75 
F of 1991, partly allowing the appeal of the appellant against order in'T.A. 
No. 91 of 1991 and allowing the State appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The action of the Government in regularising the services 
as CMOs. cannot be regarded either as improper or illegal. Once their 
services were regularised, they were required to be treated as CMOs, 
G holding the posts equivalent to the posts of lecturers. Though the cadre of 
CMO was different from the cadre of lecturers, the government by upgrad-
ing 21 posts of CMOs desired to take them equivalent to the posts of 
lecturers so that the lecturers could be appointed on those posts. The 
qualification required for appointment on those upgraded posts of CMOs. 
H

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