- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of U.P And Others v. Dr. R.K Tandon And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Between 1961-62 and 1979, the State of Uttar Pradesh filled 2,056 posts in the Provincial Medical Service (PMS) through ad hoc one-year appointments, pending regular recruitment by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (PSC). Although the PSC drew up panels in 1971 and again—on State requisition—between 1977 and 1979, many recommended candidates were never appointed. Meanwhile, a group of long-serving ad hoc doctors secured High Court orders for regularisation from their initial dates of appointment; the State’s appeals against those orders culminated in a Supreme Court decision in SLP (C) No. 13480 of 1992 and connected matters, which upheld 20 years’ seniority for those doctors.
The State then sought to regularise all ad hoc doctors from their respective dates of appointment, prompting direct-recruit candidates to challenge the move in the High Court. The High Court directed the State to implement only those PSC recommendations pertaining to candidates still in service. Faced with conflicting directions and competing claims to seniority, the State appealed to the Supreme Court in the present batch of matters.
Legal Issues Presented
- What principles should govern the determination of inter se seniority among: (a) ad hoc doctors whose appointments were never approved by the PSC, (b) ad hoc doctors later selected by the PSC, and (c) direct recruits recommended by the PSC in 1971-72 and 1977-79?
- Whether long continuance in ad hoc service dehors the rules can confer seniority or permanency in the absence of regular appointment under the service rules.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court decision in SLP (C) No. 13480 of 1992 and batch | Ad hoc employees who had already completed over 20 years of service were entitled to count that period toward seniority. | Used to validate seniority already granted to certain doctors whose cases had attained finality; they were kept at the top of the seniority list. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that ad hoc appointments made dehors the recruitment rules do not by themselves create any right to permanency or seniority; seniority ordinarily flows only from the date of regular appointment. However, when an initial appointment is itself made according to rules, even if styled “ad hoc,” seniority may run from that date.
Applying these principles, the Court created a tiered hierarchy:
- Category I – Doctors whose regularisation from their initial appointment dates had already been upheld by courts/tribunals. Their seniority, having become final, remains intact.
- Category II – 1972 PSC selectees. The State must issue appointments in PSC merit order, deemed effective from the date the 1972 merit list was received. They are placed immediately below Category I.
- Category III – PSC selectees from lists dated 23-12-1977, 16-6-1978 and 10-5-1979. They are to be appointed in the order of merit shown in their respective lists, deemed regular from the dates each list was received, and ranked below Category II.
- Category IV – Non-selectee ad hoc doctors still in service. They are placed below the last 1979 selectee, with seniority counted from the cut-off date of receipt of the 10-5-1979 list or from their actual date of appointment if later. Reservation roster positions, where applicable, control their placement vis-à-vis general candidates.
The Court also accounted for retirees: those who retired as ad hoc doctors are to be treated notionally as regularly appointed (only for pensionary benefits) from their initial appointment dates, without this affecting the inter se seniority of serving officers.
The State was ordered to finalise the combined seniority list within six months and to disburse pensionary/terminal benefits to retirees within two months thereafter.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS ALLOWED. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s directive and substituted a comprehensive scheme for determining seniority among ad hoc and directly recruited PMS doctors in Uttar Pradesh, accompanied by strict timelines for implementation.
Implications: The decision resolves a decades-long stalemate on seniority, ensures appointment of PSC-selected candidates, protects vested rights of earlier litigants, and grants pensionary relief to retirees. The ruling is confined to the peculiar factual matrix and does not announce a new general precedent beyond reiterating existing principles on ad hoc service and seniority.
Order
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The State is caught by inaction between deep sea and the devil and it seeks the help of this Court for its retrieval to salvage from the predicament. From the record, it is seen that 2056 posts of Provincial Medical Service (PMS) cadre doctors were filled up from 1961-62 onwards by ad hoc appointments for a period of one year or till the regularly selected candidates from Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (PSC) are appointed, whichever is earlier. In 1971, the PSC, though made the selection and recommended the names of certain candidates for regular appointment, no appointments were made of those candidates. Similarly, the Government had sent requisition in their letter dated 23-12-1977 requesting further selection and the PSC recommended 1703 candidates for appointment. In the meanwhile, some of the ad hoc appointees approached the High Court and sought for, and the Court directed the regularisation of their services with effect from the dates of their initial appointment, against which orders the State filed appeals in this Court. This Court in SLP (C) No. 13480 of 1992 and batch held that since they had put in more than 20 years of service, denying them 20 years' seniority in service was unjust. Consequently, when the State attempted to regularise the service of all ad hoc employees from their respective dates of appointments, the direct recruits filed writ petitions and the High Court directed the Government to give effect to the recommendations made by the PSC confining to the candidates who were then serving the State. The State has filed these appeals and seeks to have its predicaments salvaged.
3. Now the question is that what would be the just principle to be adopted in determination of inter se seniority of the unselected and selected ad hoc employees? After hearing the learned counsel for all parties, we are of the considered view that a just and fair solution can be reached.
4. It is settled law that all ad hoc appointments made dehors the rules do not confer any right to permanency or seniority. They acquire the rights only from the date of their regular appointment according to rules. If, however, the initial appointments are according to rules, though on ad hoc or temporary basis, then the seniority would be counted from the dates of initial appointment. The ad hoc appointments here were dehors the rules. It would thus be clear that though the doctors have put in more than 33 years, they are ad hoc hands. All would not get seniority from the respective dates of appointments. It is seen that some of the doctors have retired and some had the benefit of direction given by the courts to regularise their services with effect from the dates on which they were appointed and the orders have become final. So, they are entitled to count their seniority from the respective dates of initial appointments.
5. From among the rest of the doctors, since the PSC had notified, selected and recommended the names of candidates in the year 1972, State Government is directed to make their appointment in the order of merit determined by the PSC. The State Government is directed to appoint them with effect from the date on which the State Government had received the merit list from the PSC and they be placed below the candidates whose appointments were upheld by the courts or service tribunal and became final.
6. As to the candidates whose names were recommended by the PSC in three instalments — first on 23-12-1977, second on 16-6-1978 and the final list on 10-5-1979, the State Government is directed to appoint them in the order of merit in the respective lists. The seniority of the officers so appointed would be as per the determination of the PSC in the respective lists. They would be appointed with effect from the dates on which the State Government had received the respective lists and they must be deemed to have been regularly appointed from those dates. They would be placed below 1972 selectees. Rest of the candidates, who were not selected but are still continuing in service, would be placed below the last of the 3rd list and their seniority is directed to be determined with effect from the date of the receipt of the list dated 10-5-1979. Among the non-selectees, the date on which the list dated 10-5-1979 was received by the State Government would be the cut-off date and taking into consideration of the respective dates of appointments as on that date and if made thereafter, seniority will be counted from those respective dates. Rule of reservation, if applied, and the candidates were selected accordingly, their seniority vis-à-vis the general candidates would be according to the roster maintained by the State Government.
7. It is on record that some of these ad hoc doctors have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. In respect of them, there shall be a direction to notionally treat them to be regularly appointed from respective dates of initial appointment only for the purpose of giving them pensionary and retiral benefits admissible according to relevant rules. This should not be reckoned for inter se seniority among the temporary or ad hoc doctors appointed in the service.
8. The State Government is directed to fix the inter se seniority within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order and on fixation of seniority, they are directed to release the pension and other terminal benefits to the retired doctors within a period of two months thereafter.
9. The appeals are accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
SLP No. 9430/1995 (CC 22831)
10. Permission to file SLP is granted. Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal is disposed of in the light of the above judgment.
Alert