VIRESHWAR SINGH & ORS. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 02-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI, M.Y. EQBAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 372 
VIRESHWAR SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8414-8415 of 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 2, 2014. 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND M. Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Service law: Appointment/Selection - Post of General 
Duty Medical Officers (GDMO) governed by the Delhi 
c Municipal Corporation Health Service Recruitment 
Regulations, 1982 - Under said Regulations, appointment to 
be made through the UPSC - Between 1982 and 1986 
(Phase-I), 82 GDMOs appointed on ad hoc basis - Between 
1986 and 1989 (Phase II), another 69 GDMOs appointed on 
o ad hoc basis on terms similar to the appointments made in 
Phase I - Both set of appointments not through the UPSC 
but made on the basis of a selection held by a Selection 
Committee - Regularization of Phase-I GDMOs made with 
effect from the date of recommendation of the UPSC - Claim 
E of Phase-II GDMOs for regularization from date of initial 
appointment - Held: Similar circumstanced employees have 
to be treated equally and evenly for the purpose of 
regularization - Phase II GDMOs are similarly circumstanced 
as Phase I GDMOs and, therefore, have to be treated 
F similarly and therefore their claim to regularization with effect 
from the date of their initial appointments cannot be 
countenanced. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. Both sets of GDMOs i.e. in Phase-I and 
Phase-II were not appointed on the basis of a selection 
held by the UPSC as mandated by the Regulations in 
force. Their appointments were recommended by a 
Specially Constituted Selection Committee. Their 
H 
372 
VIRESHWAR SINGH v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 373 
OF DELHI 
appointments were ad hoc; initially for a period of six A 
months which was subsequently extended from time to 
time. Being similarly circumstanced, undoubtedly, both 
sets of GDMOs will have to be treated equally and evenly 
for the purpose of regularization. [Para 13] [378-A-C] 
B 
2. If the GDMOs appointed in Phase-II are similarly 
circumstanced as *Dr. Anuradha Bodi and others, their 
claim to regularization with effect from the date of their 
initial appointments cannot be countenanced except 
perhaps if a view contrary to that has been recorded in C 
*Dr. Anuradha Bodi is taken. Any departure from the 
views expressed and conclusions reached in *Dr. 
Anuradha Bodi will not be necessary or justified. [Para 14] 
[379-C-D] 
*Dr. Anuradha Bodi and Ors vs. Municipal Corporation D 
of Delhi and Ors. (1998) 5 sec 293: 2010 (12) SCR 413 -
relied on. 
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association 
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 715: 1990 E 
(2) SCR 900; State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Aghore 
Nath Dey and Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 371: 1993 (2) SCR 919; 
Narender Chadha and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1986) 
2 SCC 157: 1986 (1) SCR 211; Keshav Chandra Joshi and 
Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272: 
F 
1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2010 (12) SCR 413 
Relied on 
Para 6 
1990 (2) SCR 900 
Referred to 
Para 13 
G 
1993 ( 2) SCR 919 
Referred to 
Para 13 
1986 (1) SCR 211 
Referred to 
Para 15 
1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 573 Referred to 
Para 15 
H 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
8414-8415 of 2014. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 05.07.2007 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2357 of 
2011 and impugned order dated 05.09.2011 of the High Court 
8 
of Delhi at New Delhi in Review Petition No. 486 of 2011 in 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2357 of 2011. 
c 
Vikas Singh, Garima Prashad, Vinay Gupta, K.K. Mishra 
for the Appellants. 
Sudarshan Rajan, Dr. Kailash Chand, P. Parmeswaran, 
Deepak Goel for the Respodents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellants are General Duty Medical Officers 
(GDMO) Grade-II who were appointed on ad hoc basis 
between 1986 and 1989. They are aggrieved by the denial of 
E 
their claim to regularization with effect from the dates of their 
initial appointments. Regularization granted from the date of the 
recommendations of the Union Public Service commission (for 
short 'UPSC'), namely, 24.07.1998 as approved by the High 
Court of Delhi by means of the impugned order dated 
F 
05.07.2011 has been called into question in the present appeal. 
3. The relevant facts are as follows. 
The post of GDMO Grade-II is a Group 'A' post governed 
by the Delhi Munici
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.