UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus LALITA S. RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1059 · Decided: 10-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
LALITA S. RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
APRIL 10, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, U.C. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Inter. se seniority-Medical Officers-Direct Recruits and ad hoc 
appointees upto 1.10.1984 regularised by UPSC pursuant to Supreme Court 
decision in A.K. Jain's case-Period of service rendered prior to regularisa-
tion-Counting of-Held, services rendered by ad hoc iWctors prior to regu-
larisation not entitled to be counted for the purpose of detennination of senior-
ity. 
Inter se seniority-Direct Recruits and ad /we appointees upto I .I 0.1984 
regularised by UP SC on the basis of written test and interview-Service ren-
dered prior to regularisation-Counting of-Held, entitled to be countedforthe 
purpose of detennination of seniority applying principle laid down in Direct 
Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association case. 
Inter se seniority-Direct Recruits and ad hoc appointees appointed after 
1.10.1984 and selected by UPSC-Period service prior to regularisation-
Counting of-Held: Not entitled to be counted for the purpose of detennination 
of seniority since the Recruitment Rules do not provide for ad hoc appoint-
ment-Indian Railway Medical Department (Assistant Medical Officers Class 
II) Recruitment Rules, 1977. 
Prior to 1986, recruitment of Assistant Medical Oflicers nnder 
Railway Administration was being done by Union Public Service Commis-
sion (UPSC). The Government of India, through au Administrative order 
of the Railway Board, permitted General Managers to recruit Assistant 
Medical Oflicers in Class II on ad hoc basis, in emergencies, for a period 
not exceeding six months; their services would be terminated as soon as the 
candidates selected by UPSC become available. As per the Order, UPSC 
could consider their applications for regularisation after written examina-
tion and interview. Besides, the Order provide for retaining ad hoc doctors 
beyond six months subject to prior approval of the Board. The ad hoc 
1059 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1060 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
doctors, whose services were not regularised hy UPSC, apprehending ter-
mination of their services, filed Writ P2tition hefore this Court. Mean-
while, during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the Central Government 
formulated new rules for recruitment called Indian Railway Medical 
Department (Assistant Medical Officers Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1977. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Rules never contemplated ad hoc appointment. The Writ Petitions 
were disposed of by this Court with direction regarding regularisation of 
services of those who were appointed prior to 1.10.1994, filling up of 
vacancies and salary and allowances; but did not deal with seniority. (Dr. 
.'Ir 
A.K. Jain & Ors. v. Union of India, [1987] Supp. SCC 497). On an applica-
tion filed by the Central Government seeking clarification with regard to 
seniority, this Court, by order dated 1.11.1988, held that the inter se senior-
ity between the direct recruits and the unsuccessful ad hoc doctors, who 
were regularised on basis of A.K. Jain's decision would be decided depend-
ing on the outcome of Constitution Bench decision in Direct Recruits Clrus 
II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharruhtra, [1990] 2 SCC 
715 CB. Later, a similar interlocutory application was filed before this 
Court by the unsuccessful doctors for determination of seniority. Mean-
while, the Constitution Bench decision in Direct Recruits Clrus II Engineer-
ing Officers Association case was pronounced and this Court disposed of the 
interlocutory application on 18.2.1993 holding that the unsuccessful ad hoc 
doctors would be placed in the seniority list after the other two categories 
i.e., direct recruits and successful ad hoc doctors, who were regularised by 
UPSC Dr. M. Haque & Ors. v. Union of India, [1993] 2 SCC 213. 
Meanwhile, in 1987 some successful ad hoc doctors, who were regu-
larised by UPSC, filed a petition before Tribunal challenging the seniority 
list dated 10.6.1987. The Tribunal, by order dated 18.3.1993, held that the 
period of ad hoc service should be also counted for purpose of seniority. 
Union of India filed an appeal before this Court challenging the Tribunal's 
Order. It was dismissed on the ground that the decision of this Court in 
Dr. M. Haque' s case will have no application to the case of the Tribunal as 
they deal with different categories of people. Seniority was rev

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