Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

KAILASH BEN T. SOLANGI AND ETC v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. REP. BY THE GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

Supreme Court Of India

May 11, 2023

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

In 1997, the Government of Puducherry publicly advertised contractual posts for General Duty Medical Officers. The two appellants, Scheduled Caste MBBS doctors, were selected through an interview held on 21 November 1997 and were appointed on 15 December 1997 for an initial period of 120 days at a consolidated salary of ₹7,000 per month. Their contractual engagement has been renewed continuously since then.

Regular appointments to the post are governed first by the Government of Pondicherry Health & Welfare Department (Group “A” Assistant Surgeon) Recruitment Rules, 1993 and later by the Pondicherry Health Services (Allopathy) Rules, 1998, both of which require selection by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The appellants attempted the UPSC examination five times without success.

After about 13 years of service, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) in 2011 for regularisation. On 26 March 2013 the Tribunal allowed their claim, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1. The Union Territory challenged that order, and on 21 November 2014 the Madras High Court set it aside, holding that such directions were contrary to binding Supreme Court precedent.

The appellants filed civil appeals before the Supreme Court in 2015. Interim orders ensured periodic renewal of their contracts while the matter was pending. On 11 May 2023, the Supreme Court delivered the present decision, along with disposing of a connected contempt petition as infructuous.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, in the peculiar facts of the case, the Supreme Court should issue a mandamus directing the regularisation of the appellants, despite statutory rules requiring UPSC-based recruitment.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

They have served continuously against sanctioned posts for nearly 26 years and are approaching superannuation (August 2023 and June 2025, respectively).
Their initial selection followed a public advertisement and a screening process, negating any allegation of “back-door” entry.
Paragraph 53 of Umadevi (3) permits regularisation of long-serving, duly qualified contractual employees whose appointments are not illegal.

Respondents’ Arguments

Under the statutory Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309, regular appointment to Group “A” Medical Officer posts must be made only through UPSC recommendations.
The Union Territory therefore lacks the power to take a policy decision to regularise the appellants or similarly placed employees.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1	Regularisation of long-serving contractual employees is permissible only in limited situations outlined in para 53; appointments must not be illegal and must satisfy constitutional requirements of fairness.	The Court held that the appellants satisfied the para 53 criteria—public advertisement, suitability assessment, service exceeding 12 years before litigation—and therefore warranted protection and regularisation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged that the statutory rules ordinarily require UPSC-based recruitment and cannot be bypassed. Nevertheless, it characterised the case as one of “extreme hardship.” Key factors informing the Court’s analysis were:

The appellants have rendered almost 26 years of uninterrupted public service as doctors.
They were appointed against sanctioned vacancies after a public advertisement and interview, satisfying Articles 14 and 16 requirements; hence their entry was not illegal.
By the time judicial protection commenced, they had already completed more than 12 years of service.
They possess the requisite qualifications but failed to clear the UPSC examination despite multiple attempts.
Paragraph 53 of Umadevi (3) allows regularisation in exceptional circumstances where appointments are legal and employees have served long terms.

Balancing the statutory mandate with equitable considerations, the Court concluded that denying regularisation at this late stage would be unjust, particularly given the appellants’ impending retirement.

Holding and Implications

The appeals are allowed; the High Court’s judgment is set aside. The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

The appellants’ services shall be regularised from the dates of their initial appointments, on a notional basis and without conferral of seniority.
No arrears of pay or other monetary benefits are payable for the past period.
The entire past service will count as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits.
Their pay is to be notionally fixed from 1 June 2023; full regular pay and emoluments are payable prospectively.

Implications: The decision affords financial security and retirement benefits to the two appellants but is expressly confined to the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case. The Court clarified that the ruling shall not operate as precedent for other contractually appointed employees.

Show all summary ...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.13999-14000 OF 2015 KAILASH BEN T. SOLANGI ETC. … APPELLANTS Versus

UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE GOVERNMENT OF

PUDUCHERRY & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CONMT.PET.(C) No.64/2022 in C.A. Nos.13999-14000/2015

O R D E R

C.A.Nos.13999-14000 of 2015

1. In the year 1997, Government of Puducherry issued an advertisement in the newspapers inviting applications for the appointment of doctors on contract basis. Both the appellants also applied in response thereto. They belonged to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste and were professionally qualified MBBS doctors. The appellants appeared before the Screening Committee on 21.11.1997, were found suitable to the job in hand and were appointed as General Duty Medical Officers on a contract basis vide appointment letters dated 15.12.1997. The initial appointment was for a period of 120 days only, with effect from the date of joining, and on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.7,000/- per

month.

2. This is an admitted fact that since their appointment in December 1997, the appellants have continued to serve as General Duty Medical Officers and their contractual engagement has been renewed from time to time.

3. The appointment to the post of General Duty Medical Officer in the U.T. of Puducherry was initially governed by the Government of Pondicherry, Health and Welfare Department (Health), Group `A' Posts of Assistant Surgeon, Recruitment Rules, 1993. These Rules were later replaced by the Pondicherry Health Services (Allopathy) Rules, 1998. Under both sets of Rules, regular appointments to Group `A' Posts, which include the Medical Officer, are required to be made through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) only. The appellants attempted to qualify for the UPSC test on five occasions but did not succeed. Consequently, they could not be appointed on a regular basis. However, they continued to serve on a contractual basis, and after serving as such for almost 13 years, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (for short, `the Tribunal'), in the year 2011, seeking a direction for the regularization of their services. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 26.03.2013, accepted the claim of the appellants primarily on the ground that, in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the appellants were entitled to regularization of their services as they had served for more than 10 years on the post. The Tribunal further held that a similar direction had also been issued for

regularization of the services of the Assistant Surgeons, who too were appointed on a contract basis.

4. The official respondents challenged the directions issued by the Tribunal before the High Court in a Writ Petition, and vide impugned judgment dated 21.11.2014, the High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the Tribunal's order, laying down that the Tribunal had no authority to issue a direction for the regularization of services of contractual employees, for such a direction had been termed contrary to the dictum of this Court held in various decisions cited by the High Court, including Uma Devi(supra).

5. The aggrieved appellants approached this Court in the year 2015. The matter came up for hearing on 10.04.2015, and this Court issued notice and directed the respondents to renew the appellants' contract for 120 days for one time, which was further directed to be renewed from time to time by various orders passed by this Court. Resultantly, the appellants are still working on the contract basis.

6. Vide order dated 18.02.2022, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union Territory of Puducherry was directed to take instructions as to why the appellants, despite having put in nearly 25 years of service, have not been regularized.

7. Thereafter, the instant Civil Appeal along with the Contempt Petition came up for hearing on 04.03.2022, when this Court passed the following order:

"1. Since the petitioners admittedly have been working as doctors for nearly twenty-five years with the Government of Puducherry, we request Mr. Aravindh

S, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent to take instructions on the possibility of regularizing the services of the petitioners with due safeguards.

2. List the matters on 1 April 2022."

8. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and perused the material placed on record, including the written submissions submitted by learned counsel for the respondent.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has urged that since regular appointment to the posts of Medical Officers is made only on the recommendations of UPSC, the Union Territory of Puducherry is unable to take a policy decision to regularize the services of the appellants or the other similarly placed employees.

10. It is in this backdrop that the question that falls for consideration is as to whether, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court should carve out an exception and issue a mandamus to regularize the services of the appellants?

11. It is undoubtedly true that Recruitment to the Post of Medical Officer is regulated under the statutory rules formulated in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution, and the appointment to the Group `A' post has to be made strictly in accordance with such rules. It is contemplated by the rules that regular appointments shall be made on the basis of recommendations made by UPSC. Therefore, such a recruitment process cannot ordinarily be bypassed.

12. Regardless thereto, we find that the instant case is one of extreme hardships where the two appellants have been working on a contract basis for the past nearly 26 years. We are informed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that they are reaching their age of superannuation in August, 2023 and June, 2025 respectively. While learned counsel for respondent No.1 is right in contending that the appellants have continued in service mostly under the protection granted by the courts, but the fact remains that even before they approached the Tribunal in the year 2011, the appellants had already put in service for more than 12 years. They were admittedly appointed against vacant sanctioned posts and possessed the requisite qualifications for appointment on regular basis. It is also a matter of record that the procedure with semblance to what is contemplated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution was followed inasmuch as a public advertisement was issued and the Screening Committee interviewed the candidates to adjudge their suitability. In that sense, it is not a case of back door entry into public employment. The only embargo which deprives the appellants regular absorption is that they failed to crack the UPSC test even after five attempts. It appears to us that the principles illustrated by the Constitution Bench in para 53 of Uma Devi's case (supra) should come to the rescue of the appellants as they are duly qualified persons, working against sanctioned posts, and even before they got protection from the courts, they had served for more than 12 years, and, as such, their appointments cannot be termed illegal.

13. Keeping in view the vast experience in public service

earned by the appellants coupled with the fact that they have spent nearly 26 years providing medical services to the general public, we are satisfied that the appellants deserve to be protected with certain service benefits at this juncture of their lives. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside, and the appeals are disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the appellants from the date of their initial appointments as General Duty Medical Officer, without any benefit of seniority and on a notional basis.

(ii) The appellants shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay or other monetary benefits on account of the deemed regularization of their services.

(iii) However, the entire service of the appellants shall be deemed to be regular service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.

(iv) The pay of the appellants shall be fixed on a notional basis with effect from 01.06.2023 and from that date onwards, they shall be entitled to regular pay scale with full emoluments.

14. It is clarified that these directions have been issued keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the same shall not be taken as a precedent in the case of other contractually appointed employees.

Conmt.Pet.(C)No.64/2022 in C.A.Nos.13999-14000/2015 In view of the order passed by this Court today in C.A.Nos.13999-14000 of 2015, the instant petition has become infructuous, and the same stands disposed of as such.

.........................J.

(SURYA KANT)

..............…….........J.

(J.B. PARDIWALA)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 11, 2023.

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s).13999-14000/2015 KAILASH BEN T. SOLANGI ETC Appellant(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. REP. BY THE GOVERNMENT

OF PUDUCHERRY & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

CONMT.PET.(C) No.64/2022 in C.A. Nos.13999-14000/2015 (XII)

(FOR ADMISSION)

Date : 11-05-2023 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Appellant(s) Mr. Col R Balasubramaniam, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR

Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv.

Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv.

Mr. M Veeraragavan, Adv.

Mr. P Rajaram, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Ms. Uma Bhuvaneshwari. C, Adv.

Mr. Abbas, Adv.

Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

C.A.Nos.13999-14000 of 2015 The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Conmt.Pet.(C)No.64/2022 in C.A.Nos.13999-14000/2015 In view of the order passed by this Court today in C.A.Nos.13999-14000 of 2015, the instant petition has become infructuous, and the same stands disposed of as such.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.)

DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed order is placed on the file)