Holding

The Court ordered regularisation of all ad‑hoc AMOs appointed up to 1 October 1984, with seniority from their continuous service, and dismissed petitions of those appointed thereafter, while prescribing equal pay and posting procedures.

Summary

The petitioners, appointed as ad‑hoc Assistant Medical Officers (AMOs) in the Indian Railways between 1983 and 1986, challenged the Railways' decision to terminate their services and deny regularisation, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They contended that the 1977 Recruitment Rules did not provide for such ad‑hoc appointments and that the respondents acted arbitrarily by replacing them with regularly recruited Assistant Divisional Medical Officers (ADMOs) selected by the UPSC. The respondents argued that the ad‑hoc appointments were temporary measures authorized by the General Managers of the zones to address staffing shortages and that the petitioners who failed to secure regularisation through UPSC selection could lawfully be terminated. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework, the purpose of the recruitment rules, and the constitutional guarantees of equality and non‑discrimination. It held that all doctors appointed on an ad‑hoc basis up to 1 October 1984 must be regularised in consultation with the UPSC, with seniority counted from their continuous service, while dismissing petitions of those appointed after that date. The Court also directed equal salary and allowances for ad‑hoc doctors from 1 January 1986, and prescribed procedures for posting and age‑relaxation for future UPSC selections. All writ petitions were disposed of in accordance with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the termination of ad‑hoc AMOs violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the 1977 Indian Railways Medical Department Recruitment Rules permit regularisation of ad‑hoc appointments made before 1 October 1984.
Whether the respondents' actions in replacing ad‑hoc doctors with UPSC‑selected ADMOs are arbitrary or illegal.
Whether age‑relaxation should be granted to ad‑hoc doctors applying for UPSC selection.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 32
Indian Railways Medical Department (Assistant Medical Officers Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1977s. Rule 6

Subjects

ad‑hoc appointmentregularisationIndian Railwaysrecruitment rulesFundamental RightsArticles 14 and 16UPSC selectionseniorityservice termination

Judgment

DR. A.K. JAIN & ORS. ETC. ·ETC.
A
v.·
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

SEPTEMBER 24, 1987

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] B

Indian Railways Medical Department (Assistant Medical Officers
Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1977: Rule 6--Zonal Railways-Ad hoc
Assistant Medical Officers-Replacement/regularisation of--;Directions
issued by Court.

1. Services of all doctors appointed as Assistant Medical Officers/ C
Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on ad hoc basis upto 1.10.1984
shall be regularised in consultation with the Union Public Service Com-
mission. The doctors so regularised shall be appointed as Assistant
Divisional Medical Officers from the date from which they have been
continuously working. [338C-D] D
2. The petitions of the Officers appointed suboequent to
1.10.1984 are dismissed. However, the Assistant Divisional Medical
Officers who have been selected by the Union Public Service Commis-
sion shall first be posted to the vacant posts available. H all those
selected by UPSC cannot be accommodated they may be posted to the
posts now held by the doctors appointed on ad hoc basis suboequent to E
1.10.1984. While making such postings the principle of 'last come, first

- }II' shall be obse"ed. The doctors so dlsplaced, if willing to serve in any
other zone where there is a vacancy may be accommodated in. such
vacancy on ad hoc basis. [338E-G I

3. All Assistant Medical Officers/Assistant Divisional Medical F
Officers working on ad hoc basis shall be paid the same salary and
allowances on the revised scale with effect from 1.1.1986. [338H; 339AI

4. No ad hoc Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional
Medical Officer who may be working in the Railways shall be replaced G
by any newly appointed Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional
Medical Ofticer on ad hoc basis. l339BI
S. H the ad hoc doctors appointed after 1.10.1984 apply for
selection by the Union Public Service Commission necessary relau-
tlon in age to the extent of the period of service rendered shall be
granted. [339cJ H
335
\.

336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 1 S.C.R.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 822 of
A
1987 etc. etc.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution) India.

Gobind Mukhoty, P.P. Rao, M.C. Bhandare, Surya Kant, V.
B Shekhar, M.A. Chinnaswamy, C.K. Sucharita, Ms. Malini Poduval,
Raj Kumar Gupta, P.C. Kapur and S.S. Tewari for the Petitioners.

D.N. Dwivedi, R.B. Mishra, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Ms. A.
Subhashini, Y.P. Rao, B.D. Sharma, Shrinath Singh and K.K. Gupta
for the Respondents.
c Supreme Court Editorial Note-Statement of Facts

The petitioners in their Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the
Constitution challenged the action of the Respondents in terminating
their services as 'ad-hoc' Assistant Medical Officers on the plea that
D they were 'ad-hoc' appointees and replacing them by freshly recruited
Assistant Divisional Medical Officers, and prayed for the issue of a
direction to the Respondents to treat the appointments of the petition-
ers as regular with effect from the dates of their respective appoint-
ments as 'ad-hoc' Assistant Medical Officers and to assign them conse-
quent seniority in the grades.
E
It was contended by the petitioners that they were appointed as
'ad-hoc-' Assistant Medical Officers (Class II) during the period
August 1983 to July 1986 in the South-Eastern, North East Frontier
and Northern Zones of the Indian Railways and had been officiating in
the said grade for periods ranging upto four years. Although the initial
-
F appointments were for a period of six months, the respondents had
extended their tenure from time to time. Instead of regularising the
services of the petitioners and conferring the benefits of seniority, the
respondents had threatened to terminate their services as and when
the UPSC selected Assistant Divisional Medical Officers and they
joined the service. In the South-Central Zone of the Railways, the
G petitioners contended that the Respondents had in fact by an Order
No. 450/86 dated 11.11.1986, terminated the services of eleven
officiating 'ad-hoc' Assistant Medical officers as they had not availed
of the three chances stated in their appointment order for selection
through UPSC. It was alleged that neither the Indian Railways Medical
Department (Assistant Medical Officers Class II) Recruitment Rules
H 1977 nor the earlier Rules of 1967 provided for 'ad-hoc' appointment
A.K. JAIN v. U.0.1. 337

.~ of Assistant Medical Officers, and that the Respondents exercised the
A
powers to relax the Rules conferred by Rule 8 of the 1967 Rules and
Rule 6 of the 197TRulcs, as it was inevitable to prevent dislocation of
medical services on the Railways and alleviation of hardship to the
employees and their families.

These petitions were contested by the Respondent. In the B
counter-effidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it was con-
tended that the petitioners belonged to the category of 'ad-hoc'
doctors who were appointed by the General Managers of the con-
cerned Zonal Railways under their powers, and not by the President of
India, purely as a temporary measure for a specified period, that such
'ad-hoc' appointments became unavoidable in the Railways and were
resorted to, to tide over temporary shortage of professional doctors c
} and that these 'ad-hoc' doctors' tenures were extended for various
periods from time to time. It was further contended that the recruit-
ment of regular doctors on the Railways was done in the capacity of
Assistant Divisional Medical Officer (Group 'A') in the scale of
Rs. 700-1600 through the Union Public Service Commission as the D
posts belonged to Group 'A' for which the appointing authority was
the President of India. It was also submitted that the General Mana-
gers of the Zonal Railways were empowered to recruit 'ad-hoc' doctors
as Assistant Medical Officers Group 'B' in the scale of Rs.650-1200
-{ purely on 'ad-hoc' basis for a specified period to maintain the Railways
Medical Service till replacement by Assistant Divisional Medical E
Officers, selected through the UPSC.

- The Combined Medical Services Examination was introduced by
the UPSC in the years 1977, and from 1977 to 1983 maximum age
relaxation upto 40 years or even 50 years was granted from time to
time to enable the satd.'ad-hoc' doctors on the Zonal Railways to avail F
-{ themselves of the opportunity of appearing in the Combined Medical
Services Examination. In addition, the UPSC held two Special Selec-
tions based on interview only with sufficient relaxation in the years
1982 and 1985. In these two special selections held in 1982 and 1985,
100 and 67 'ad-hoc' doctors respectively of the Railways were selected
and absorbed in the regular cadre. The petitioners who were still 'ad- G
hoc' doctors in the Zonal Railways, were thus those doctors who either
failed to appear in the Combined Medical Services Examination held
~ by the UPSC or after appearing had failed. Having failed to get reg-
ularised in accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations for
regular appointments, the petitioners services had to be terminated
and as such there had been neither any arbitrary nor illegal action on H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] 1 S.C.R.

A the part of the respondents, nor any violation of the Fundamental '!<:-
Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16.

The following order of the Court was delivered:

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at great length
a h!lving regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases we
pass the following Order in the above writ petitions:

1. The services of all doctors appointed either, as Assistant
Medical Officers or as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer on ad hoc
basis upto 1.10.1984 shall be regularised in consultation with the
Union Public Service Commission on the evaluation of their work and
C conduct on the basis of their confidential reports in respect of the
period subsequent to 1.10. 1982. Such evaluation shall be done by the
Union Public Service Commission. The doctors so regularised shall be
appointed as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers with effect from
the date from which they have been continuously working as Assistant
D Medical Officer/ Assistant Divisional Medical Officer. The Railway
shall be at liberty to terminate the services of those who are not so
regularised. If the services of arty of the petitioners appointed prior to
1.10.84 have been terminated except on resignation or on disciplinary
grounds, he shall be also considered for regularisation and if found fit
his services shall be regularised as if there was no break in the con-
}
E tinuity of service but without any back wages.

2. The Petitions of the Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divi-
sional Medical Officers appointed subsequent to 1.10.1984 are dis-
missed. But we however direct that the Assistant Divisional Medical
Officers who may have been now selected by the Union Public Service
-
F Commission shall first be posted to the vacant posts available
wherever they may be. If all those selected by the U.P.S.C. cannot be
accommodated against the available vacant posts they may be posted
to the posts now held by the doctors appointed on ad hoc basis subse-
quent to 1.10.1984 and on such posting the doctor holding the post on
ad hoc basis shall vacate the same. While making such postings the
G principle of 'last come, first go' shall be observed by the Railways on
Zonal basis. If any doctor who is displaced pursuant to the above
direction is wiling to serve in any other Zone where there is a vacancy
he may be accommodated on ad hoc basis in such vacancy.

3. All Assistant Medical Officers/Assistant Divisional Medical
l:i Officers working on ad hoc basis shall be paid the same salary and
A.K. JAIN v. U.0.1. 339

allowances as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on the revised A
scale with effect from 1.1.1986. The arrears shall be paid within four
months.

4. No ad hoc Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional
Medical Officer who may be working in the Railways shall be replaced B
by any newly appointed AMO/AMO on ad hoc basis: Whenever
there is need for the appointment of any AMO/ ADMO on ad hoc basis
is any Zone the existing ad hoc AMO/ ADM Os who are likely to be
replaced by regularly appointed candidates shall be given preference.

5. If the ad hoc doctors appointed after 1. 10: 1984 apply for
selection by the Union Public Service Commission the Union of India C
9-\" and the Railways Department shall grant relaxation in age, to the
·: .,!' extent of the period of service rendered by them as ad hoc doctors in
the Railways.

All the Writ Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
D
P.S.S. Petitions disposed of.

-

-{