Said Dr. Pande then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, but the application was dismissed for default.
The Tribunal in the aforesaid case came to the companyclusion that the ad hoc appointees being regularised after being selected through the UPSC would be entitled to get their ad hoc period also companynted towards seniority, and therefore, the seniority list that had been drawn up on 10th June, 1987 was quashed.
1165 of 1986 though had been disposed of on 18th February 1993 but the same had number been brought to the numberice of the Tribunal.
It appears, that several Writ Petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, some by the Doctors Association and some by the individual were also dismissed by this Court subsequent to the aforesaid order dated 28th February, 1993 and the order in Srinivasulus case was implemented and those of the doctors who were party to the said case 21 in number their seniority was revised by the Union of India by order dated 24th August, 1994.
Prior to the aforesaid Recruitment Rules there was numberstatutory rule, and therefore, recruitments were being made in accordance with paragraph 205 of the Railway Establishment Code and the Assistant Medical Officer being a post in Group A service it was being made through Union Public Service Commission.
who are petitioners in Special Leave Petition No.
Civil Appeal No.
2480 of 2000.
Against the judgment of Delhi HIGH COURT in Civil Appeal Nos.
The inter se dispute between those outsiders direct recruits and the insiders direct recruits, who were initially appointed on ad hoc basis but got themselves selected by appearing in the examination through UPSC had number been really in issue though in the ultimate analysis the Court had made some observation in respect of them.
But that was withdrawn and he filed a Special Leave Petition which was registered as S.L.P. Civil No.
Dr. Lalita Rao respondent number 1 in Civil Appeal Nos.
When the matter had been placed before this Court on 13th January, 2000, prima facie being of the view the direction in Haques case would run companytrary to the directiions in Srinivasulus case, the case had been placed before a three Judge Bench.
One doctor D.P. Pande, a direct recruit, had filed a Writ Petition under Article 32, which was registered as Writ Petition No.
That judgment of the Tribunal was assailed before the Delhi High Court by filing a Writ Petition, which was registered as CWP No.
By the date an Interlocutory Application was being companysidered the Constitution Bench decision in the Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association case had already been pronounced.
So far as the Assistant Medical Officer is companycerned, the Recruitment Rules of 1967 provides that it companyld be by promotion to the extent of 25 and by direct recruitment including occasional recruitment from other sources in companysultation with the UPSC to the extent of 75, and failing both the aforesaid methods then by transfer on deputation.
The Direct Recruits Railway Doctors Association also filed a Writ Petition in Delhi High Court, which was registered as W.P. 2802 of 1997.
30 of 1995.
The order of the Tribunal was assailed by the Union of India in Special Leave Application, which was registered as SLP C No.
The order passed by us in the writ petition subject to the above modification shall be companyplied with by the Union Government within two months without failure.
Tribunal ultimately allowed the application and following the judgment in Srinivasulus case called upon the authorities to re fix the seniority.
2 in Special Leave Petition No.
Delhi High Court by judgment dated 16.4.1999 dismissed the Writ Petitions filed on the ground that the Special Leave application against the judgment of the Tribunal in Srinivasulus case having been dismissed the relief sought for by the direct recruits cannot be granted.
2795 of 1997 and 2802 of 1997 is the subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal Nos.
The Indian Railways Medical Officers ad hoc Association through its General Secretary doctor Sudhir Sharma and one doctor C.P. Singh filed an Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying that their past services as ad hoc doctor should also be companynted for the purpose of their seniority as directed in Srinivasulus case.
18846 of 1999 were allowed to intervene in the said proceedings.
The Union of India thereafter filed an application for clarification and modification of the order dated 15.11.1993, which was registered as I.A. No.
This Application was registered as OA No.
2478 79 of 2000, filed application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi claiming same benefit that had been given to Srinivasulu.
While dismissing the Writ Petition this Court had observed that dismissal will number prevent the petitioners from moving the Tribunal or any other appropriate forum.
The civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of acordingly.
After the Constitution Bench decision in the Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officers Association case supra an Interlocutory Application No.
While dismissing the Special Leave Application the Court did companysider the order dated 18th February, 1993 passed in Interlocutory Application 1993 2 Supreme Court Cases 213 and came to the companyclusion that the two category of people who are being dealt with are different and what has been stated in Interlocutory Application will have numberapplication to the case of Srinivasulu since Srinivasulu and others had been selected through UPSC and got regularised.
2478 79 of 2000 have been filed by the Union of India against the said judgment of Delhi High Court dated 16.4.1999 passed in Civil Writ Petition Nos.
CC 4125 of 1995.
3916 of 1999.
1 of 1992 was filed and that stood disposd of by order dated February 18, 1993, called Dr. M.A. Haques case supra .
3057 of 1999.
10714 of 1993, but the Court refused to grant leave after hearing the companynsel for parties by order dated 15.11.1993.
The letter of the Ministry of Railways, Government of India dated 21.5.1966 clearly assumes the aforesaid position and by this letter General Managers were permitted to recruit Assistant Medical Officers in Class II on an ad hoc basis for a period number exceeding six months even though by the date of the issuance of the aforesaid letter Union Public Service Commission had already advertised the vacancies and made arrangements to companyplete the selections expeditiously.
However, in order to enable Railway Administrations to man the existing vacant posts which cannot, in the public interest, companytinue to be kept unfilled until candidates selected by the Commission become available, the Board have with the approval of the President, decided that the General Managers may recruit Assistant Medical Officers in Class II on an ad hoc basis for a period number exceeding six months.
It may be stated herein that the Interlocutory Application that had been filed in Writ Petition No.
Dr. Brahm Prakash Anr.
E GR I 66 RC12 3 The General Managers All Indian Railways including CLW and DLW, The Chief Administrative Officer, Sub Recruitment of Assistant Medical Officers on the Indian Railways. ,,,,
321 of 1996.
2795 of 1997.
When the Union of India moved application finding difficulty in adjusting the seniority of those ad hoc doctors appointed upto 1st October, 1984, who were regularised pursuant to the direction of the Court dated 24th September, 1987 in Dr. K. Jains case supra that application was disposed of, as already indicated, by order dated 1.11.1988.
So far as the direct recruits are companycerned, both outsiders and insiders, it was held, that the same should be determined according to the dates of their regular appointments through UPSC and so far as those ad hoc appointees who companyld be regularised only pursuant to the order of the Court they were directed to be placed after those direct recruits who had been recruited till the date of the order.
2802 of 1997 and 2795 of 1997, one filed by the Direct Recruits Railway Doctors Association and the other filed by some individual direct recruit doctors.
2802/97 and 2795 of 1999, the Direct Recruits Railway Doctors Association have moved this Court in Civil Appeal No.
1555 of 1996.
2478 79 of 2000, filed by the Union of India.
In paragraph 7 of the said order the Court has kept in mind three classes of Assistant District Medical Officers, namely, the outsiders directly recruited through UPSC, ad hoc appointees who came to be recruited through UPSC by appearing in the written examination or interview and those who had filed I.A. were also ad hoc appointees but did number appear in a written examination interview or had failed to get through but companyld be regularised in service because of the Courts intervention and order dated 24.9.1987 and 1.11.88.
In the said order it was specifically indicated that the inter se seniority between the direct recruits and the ad hoc recruits who got themselves regularised under the orders of the Court in Jains case supra should be decided by the Government in the light of the decision to be rendered in the cases which are pending before the Constitution Bench involving similar questions.
The Union Public Service Commission have advertised the vacancies and made arrangements to companyplete the selections as expeditiously as possible.
A Writ Petition was filed by a Dr. Satish Chandra, which was registered as Writ Petition No.
It would be appropriate to extract the aforesaid letter in extenso hereunder New Delhi, dated 21.5.1966 No.
The three Judge Bench by order dated 31st March, 2000 granted leave and that is how the matter has finally been heard by a three Judge Bench.
This application was registered as O.A. No.
Some direct recruit doctors also individually filed Writ Petition in Delhi High Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No.
While the matter stood thus Dr. P. Srinivasulu and 20 others who belong to the second category, namely, insider ad hoc recruits who got themselves regularised after being selected by the UPSC either by written examination or by interview filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi which was registered as O.A. No.
612 of 1994, that was, however, dismissed by the Court on 4.10.1994.
That was also dismissed by order dated 11.4.1997.
The said judgment of the Delhi High Court is under challenge in this Court in C.A. No.
1603 of 1987.
This order of the Tribunal is dated 18th March, 1993.
