UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus DR. DEVENDRA VIR SAHI

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 426 · Decided: 18-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
DR. DEVENDRA VIR SAHi 
... 
APRIL 18, 1995 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.) 
SeTVice Law: Rai/ways---Assistant Medical Officers-Appointment on 
ad hoc basis--Regularisatiorr-Screening by Union Public SeTVice Commis-
,... 
sioti-criterii:r-Scrutiny of seTVice records as also inteTView-Procedure fol-
-.... 
c /owed-Validity of. 
By its judgment and order dated September 24, 1987 In Dr. A.K Jain 
& Ors. v. Union of India, (1987] Supp. SCC 497 this Court directed 
regularisation of the services of Asslsta11t Medkal Oftlcers appointed In 
D 
the North Eastem'Rallways on ad hoc basis upto 1.10.1984. The regularlsa-
tlon was done on the basis of evaluatlo11 by Union Public Service Commis· 
sion of their work and concluct as see11 from their cOllfldelltlal reports. 
The respondellt W11S appol11ted as Assistant Medical OIDcu OD 20th -
July, 1985. Ad hoc appoi11tmenb of doctors In the Indian RalhraY Seniee 
E were ba11ned In 1981i. It was however decided that benefit of regularlsadon 
be given to those who were appointed ad hoc 11,n or after 1.10.1984, but 
before November, 1986 provided they were tonnd snltable by the Union 
Public Service Commission. 119 doctors were scnened and 1115 found lb 
for regularisation. 14 doctors Including the respondent were filuud unfJI 
and their services were terminated. 
F 
Respondent approached Ifie Central Adiulnlstrati'Ye Tilbunahnd It 
held that the respondent should have been considered for regularisation 
only on the basis of his Confidential Reports as was done In the case of 
Assistant Medical Officers who were covered by the judginelat of this Court 
G in Dr. A.K. Jain's case. It also held that until the respondent's case was 
considered for regularisation on this basis, his services should not be 
terminated. 
Hence this appeal by the Uniou of India. 
,4. 
H 
Allowing the ap)ieal, this Court 
426 
U.0.1. v. DEVENDRA VIR SAHI[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.) 427 
HELD: I.I. The respondent was appointed after 1.10.1984 and hence A 
he Ca!'ln~t get the benefit or the directions given in Dr. A.K. Jain's case. In 
respect or Assistant Medical Officers who have been appointed after 
1.10.1984, the appellants decided to regularise the seM'ices or those doctors 
who were considered suitable for regularisation by the Union Public 
Service Commission. The Union Public SeM'ice Commission took into B 
account the seM'ice records or the Assistant Medical Officers and also 
lnteM'lewed them in order to decide their sultabilitY. _rilfregularisation. 
There Is no reason for finding fault with this process ·of ~~ilufari.sation. 
[ 428'H, 429-A, BJ 
1.2. For regularisation, the respondent had to be found fit by the 
Union Public SeM'ice Commission. Since he was found unfit, he could C 
have no grievance against the termination of his seM'ices in these cir-
cumstances. [429-F] 
Union of India and Ors. v. Dr. Gyan Prakash Singh, JT (1993) 5 SC 
681, held applicable. 
D 
Dr. A.K lain and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] Supp. SCC 
~ 
497, held Inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4470 of 
~ 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.92 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A. No. 579 of 1992. 
Ms. Kitty Kumararnangalam and V.K. Verma for the Appellants. 
A.K. Sinha and K.K. Gupta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Leave granted. 
F 
The respondent was appointed in the North Eastern Railways as G 
Assistant Medical Officer on an ad !toe basis on 20.7.1985. In the case of 
Dr. A.K lain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1987) Supp. SCC 497, this 
Court, by its judgment and order dated 24.9.1987, directed regularisation 
of the service of Assistant Medical Officers or Assistant Divisional Medial 
Officers appointed in the North Eastern Railways on an ad hoc basis upto H 
A 
B 
, . 
428 
St.:PREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 3 S.C.R. 
1.10.1984. This Court directed such regularisation on the basis of evaluation 
of their work and conduct as seen from their Confidential Reports. Such 
evaluation was directed to be done by the Union Public Service Commis-
sion. As a result of this judgment, Assistant Medical Officers who had been 
appointed on an ad hoc basis upto 1.10.1984 were regularised after ex-
amination of their service record by the Union Public Service Commission. 
The respondent herein was appointed on 20th of July, 1985. Hence he was 
not entitled to the benefit o

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