- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India v. S.K Bhargawa .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Railways on an ad hoc basis by a letter dated 8-7-1985. The appointment was expressly temporary for six months or until a Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)-selected candidate joined, whichever came first. The letter further stipulated that if the respondent continued beyond six months due to shortage of UPSC-selected candidates and failed to qualify in three successive UPSC examinations—or did not avail of three successive chances—his services would be terminated.
The respondent assumed duty on 9-1-1986. Between 1986 and 1992 the UPSC conducted annual Combined Medical Services Examinations and a special selection to regularise ad hoc doctors appointed after 1-10-1984. The respondent neither utilised three successive examination chances nor qualified in the special selection; the UPSC found him unsuitable for regularisation.
Despite the UPSC’s finding, the Central Administrative Tribunal (order dated 3-11-1992) directed the Railways to reconsider the respondent’s case de novo solely on the basis of his service record and to retain him on a regular basis if found fit. The Union of India appealed against this order, leading to the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an ad hoc Assistant Medical Officer appointed after 1-10-1984, found unfit by the UPSC and who did not avail of three successive examination chances, can claim regularisation in service.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in directing a de novo consideration of the respondent’s case solely on his service record, disregarding the UPSC’s adverse assessment.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Union of India)
- The case is governed by Union of India v. Dr Gyan Prakash Singh 1994 Supp (1) SCC 306, which limits the benefit of Dr A.K. Jain to ad hoc appointments made prior to 1-10-1984; hence the respondent, appointed later and found unfit by UPSC, is not entitled to regularisation.
- The respondent failed to utilise three successive chances provided under the appointment letter and was also rejected in the special UPSC selection; termination is therefore contractually and legally justified.
Respondent's Arguments
- Relied on non-speaking dismissal orders in Union of India v. S.K. Rajan (SLP No. 10807 of 1993) and subsequent similar orders, asserting that service cannot be terminated without giving three successive UPSC chances.
- Invoked observations in Dr A.K. Jain v. Union of India 1987 Supp SCC 497 regarding discharge of post-1984 ad hoc medical officers.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Dr Gyan Prakash Singh, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 306 (1994) 26 ATC 940 |
|
The present respondent was appointed after 1-10-1984 and was rejected by UPSC; hence, under this precedent, he is not entitled to regularisation. |
| Dr A.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 497 (1988) 1 SCR 335 | Contained observations on discharge of ad hoc medical officers. | The Court held that its benefit is limited to pre-1-10-1984 appointments and therefore does not aid the respondent. |
| Union of India v. S.K. Rajan, SLP No. 10807 of 1993 (non-speaking dismissal) | Suggested that termination should follow only after three successive UPSC chances are given. | The Court distinguished these non-speaking orders, noting that in the present case multiple chances were available and the respondent still failed. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court compared the respondent’s situation with Gyan Prakash Singh and found the facts “squarely covered”. The respondent was appointed after 1-10-1984 and had been declared unfit by the UPSC; therefore, the ratio in Gyan Prakash Singh foreclosed any claim to regularisation.
2. The terms of the 8-7-1985 appointment letter expressly authorised termination if the respondent failed to qualify in three successive UPSC examinations or did not avail of three successive chances. An additional affidavit showed that UPSC conducted annual examinations from 1986 onward, yet the respondent failed to avail himself of “three successive chances and more”.
3. A special UPSC selection for ad hoc doctors appointed after 1-10-1984 also found the respondent unsuitable. Consequently, termination strictly followed the contractual terms and the governing precedent.
4. The respondent’s reliance on non-speaking dismissal orders in S.K. Rajan and allied cases was rejected. Those cases appeared to involve situations where three UPSC chances had not been provided, whereas the present record demonstrated multiple opportunities.
5. Observations in Dr A.K. Jain were likewise deemed inapplicable because Gyan Prakash Singh had already confined its reach to pre-1984 appointments.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Tribunal’s order dated 3-11-1992 set aside.
Direct Effect: The respondent’s termination is upheld, and the Railways are not obliged to reconsider or regularise his appointment. No order as to costs was made.
Broader Implications: The judgment reinforces the precedent that ad hoc Assistant Medical Officers appointed on or after 1-10-1984 cannot claim regularisation if the UPSC finds them unfit, and that non-speaking dismissal orders do not create binding principles contrary to expressed precedent.
Sujata V. Manohar, J.— The respondent was appointed as Assistant Medical Officer in the Railways on ad hoc basis in 1986. His case along with the case of other ad hoc Assistant Medical Officers was referred to the Union Public Service Commission for the purpose of regularisation. The Commission, after the scrutiny of the confidential service record and after conducting an interview, has rejected the case of the respondent for regularisation. The Tribunal, however, by its order dated 3-11-1992 has directed that the case of the respondent should be considered de novo only on the basis of his service record and he should be retained in service if found fit on a regular basis. Hence the present appeal.
2. The case of the respondent is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dr Gyan Prakash Singh 1994 Supp (1) SCC 306, (1994) 26 ATC 940 where this Court has laid down that the decision of this Court in A.K Jain (Dr) v. Union of India 1987 Supp SCC 497, (1988) 1 SCR 335 only applies to ad hoc Assistant Medical Officers appointed prior to 1-10-1984. The Court further held that the respondent in that case who was appointed on 1-10-1984 was found unfit by the Union Public Service Commission and hence could not be regularised. The facts of the present case are similar to those in the case of Union of India v. Gyan Prakash Singh 1994 Supp (1) SCC 306, (1994) 26 ATC 940. The respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis much after 1-10-1984. He was found unfit for regularisation by the Union Public Service Commission. Hence the appellant has correctly declined to continue him.
3. We have seen the counter-affidavit of the respondent and the documents annexed. The letter of appointment dated 8-7-1985 pertaining to the respondent has been produced before us. The letter sets out that the appointment of the respondent will be purely temporary on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the respondent is replaced by a candidate selected by the Union Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. The letter further provides as follows:
“In case your services are continued on ad hoc basis beyond six months due to shortage of candidates duly selected by UPSC, and if you fail to get selected in the selection/competitive examinations held by the UPSC on three successive occasions or do not avail of three chances successively, your service shall be terminated.”
4. Pursuant to this appointment letter the respondent was appointed as Assistant Medical Officer on ad hoc basis with effect from 9-1-1986. The appellant has filed an additional affidavit which sets out that the respondent did not make use of any of the chances available to him. The Union Public Service Commission had conducted competitive examinations every year. The particulars of these examinations are given in the said affidavit of Ashok Bhandari, Joint Director Estt. (Gaz.), Railway Board, New Delhi dated 9-4-1996. It sets out, inter alia, that the Union Public Service Commission notified Combined Medical Services Examination (CMSE) 1986 on 12-10-1985. The written examination was held on 6-4-1986 and the interviews were held during the months of October-November 1986. The results were declared on 4-3-1987. CMSE 1987 was notified by the UPSC on 11-10-1986 for which written examination was held on 5-4-1987 and interviews were held during October-November 1987 and final results were declared on 14-3-1988. CMSE 1988 was notified by UPSC on 19-9-1987. Written examination was held on 28-2-1988 and the interviews were held in October-November 1988 and the final results were declared on 5-12-1988. Similar examinations had been held every year thereafter in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 and so on. The respondent did not avail of three successive chances and more to get himself qualified through these examinations for his regular appointment. Apart from these competitive examinations a special selection for regularisation of existing ad hoc doctors of the Railways who had been appointed after 1-10-1984, was conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. The respondent was also asked to appear before the Union Public Service Commission. He was, however, not found suitable for regularisation by the Union Public Service Commission and, therefore, the services of the respondent were terminated. Thus the termination of the respondent is in accordance with the terms of his appointment as also the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India v. Gyan Prakash Singh 1994 Supp (1) SCC 306, (1994) 26 ATC 940.
5. The respondent has relied upon the order of this Court in the case Union of India v. S.K Rajan SLP No. 10807 of 1993 (S.C Agrawal and Sahai, JJ.) dismissing the SLP in limine, as also two similar orders dated 24-4-1995 and 19-1-1996 in SLP No. 7318 of 1995 and CA No. 7471 of 1994 respectively. The two latter orders have relied upon the dismissal of SLP in Union of India v. S.K Rajan SLP No. 10807 of 1993 which was against the order passed by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In that case the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal came to the conclusion, after noting the terms of the appointment letter, that the applicant there was not given three successive chances in the selections conducted by the UPSC. Hence he should not be discontinued unless he is given these three successive chances and fails to qualify. The ratio of that decision will not have any application to the present case in view of the facts already set out. The three orders of dismissal of SLPs/CAs of this Court are non-speaking orders. Presumably, looking to the reasoning of the Tribunal in the orders impugned in those cases, three chances were not given to the ad hoc Assistant Medical Officers before termination of service as set out in their appointment letters. The present case is not of that type. The termination of the respondent is in accordance with the terms of his letter of appointment and is based on his failure to qualify for regularisation as per his appointment letter and also in the special selection. His case is, therefore, covered by the ratio of this Court in Union of India v. Gyan Prakash Singh 1994 Supp (1) SCC 306, (1994) 26 ATC 940.
6. The respondent has also relied upon certain observations in the case of Dr A.K Jain 1987 Supp SCC 497, (1988) 1 SCR 335 relating to the discharge of ad hoc medical officers appointed after 1-10-1984. In view of the clear findings of this Court in the case of Gyan Prakash Singh 1994 Supp (1) SCC 306, (1994) 26 ATC 940 the observations made therein cannot be pressed into service in the present case. An ad hoc officer who has not availed of three successive chances for regularisation and has not been found suitable for regularisation in a special selection by the Union Public Service Commission can be removed from service.
7. The appeal is, therefore allowed and the impugned judgment and order is set aside. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
Alert