SMT, VIJAY GOEL AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 568 · Decided: 21-10-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
SMT, VIJA Y GOEL AND ORS, 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS, 
OCTOBER 21, 1997 
B 
(SUJATAV.MANOHf\RANDD.P. WADHWA,Jl) 
Service Law : 
The Safdarjung Ho11pital (Class Ill Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1973-
C Termination of services of temporary LDCs after long years of service-
Recruitment of these LDCs made in accordance with Recruitment Rules and 
against regular vacancies-These LDCs appointed, fulfilled requisite 
qualifications and after undergoing process of selection by Selection Board-
Appointments continued for number of years-Held, appointments can not be 
D treated as ad hoc or fortuitous. 
Appellants were working as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in the 
Safdarjang Hospital and their services were regularised after long years in 
service. However, a Subordinate Services Commission (SSC) was set up by 
E the Government of India to conduct examinations for recruitment to non-
technical Class-III posts in the subordinate services in the Ministries/ 
Departments of the Government oflndia. As the recruitment of the posts of 
the LDCs in the hospital was to be made through SSC, a requisition was sent 
by the hospital authorities for filling up the posts of LDCs existing in the 
hospital. Under the Safdarjang Hospital (Class III Posts) Recruitment Rules, 
F certain qualifications and other conditions were specified and the recruitment 
was to be made only through the SSC. By a Memorandum, the appellants were 
informed that the question of their regularisation was reviewed in consultation 
with Government and it had been held that the regularisation of the services 
of the ad hoc LDCs who could not qualify any special qualifying examination 
G held by the SSC was not in order. Since the order of regularisation was passed 
by an officer below the appointing authority, the hospital had been advised by 
. 
. 
the Government to issue revised orders canceling the regularisation. The 
representation made by the appellants were rejected and they were informed 
that their regularisation were cancelled and thatthe resultant vacancies would 
H be reported to the SSC for sponsoring candidates for regular appointments 
568 
-
VIJAY GOEL v.U.0.1. 
569 
and that the appellants working as ad hoc LDCs would be terminated as and A 
when the nominees from the SSC reported for duty. 
The appellants thereafter moved the Central Administrative Tribunal 
challenging the action of the respondents. However, they remained 
unsuccessful. Hence this appeal· 
Allowing the appea~ this Court 
HELD : 1. It is nobody's case that the appellants did not fulfil the 
requisite qualifications or that they did not qualify the typing test. It is also 
B 
not disputed that the appellants were selected after they had undergone the C 
process of selection by the Selection Board. It is correct that by subsequent 
Government resolution the test was to be conducted by SSC for appointment 
to the post of LDC. It is not that the SSC could prescribe any qualifications 
differen~ than that prescribed in the recruitment rules. The fact, however, 
remains that when the hospital authorities approached SSC it expressed its D 
inability to conduct the test and select candidates for appointment to the post 
of LDCs in the hospital and rather told them that the authorities could 
themselves make arrangement to fill up the vacancies through other 
authorised channels ifit was urgent. SSC did not say that the authorities 
could fill up the vacancies on ad /10c basis only till such time candidates 
sponsored by SSC were made available to the hospital. In pursuance of the E 
communication received froni SSC the hospital authorities asked the local 
employment exchange to sponsor candidates and at the time issued circular 
allowing the eligible departmental candidates to apply for the post of LDCs. 
Posts were in existence. The authorities fell back on the recruitment rules, 
conducted the examination, found the appellants to fulfil the qualifications and F 
then selected them by duly constituted DPC. The respondents have neither 
stated nor contradicted that the selection of the appellants was not in 
conformity with the recruitment rules. That being so, this Court failed to see 
why the order regularising the services of ad hoc LDCs should have been 
cancelled on technical grounds five years after they had been regularised and G 
absorbed in the cadre. [576-F-H; 577-A-B) 
2. There cannot be a claim for regularisation for having worked for a 
number of years ifthe regularisatio

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