Holding

Seniority of doctors appointed temporarily against substantive vacancies shall be determined from the date of their initial appointment, as established in Mathur's case, and the 1979 Rules do not apply to them.

Summary

The petitioners were doctors temporarily appointed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh against substantive vacancies between 1965 and 1976. They sought seniority to be counted from the date of their initial appointments, relying on the earlier Mathur judgment, and challenged the applicability of the 1979 ad‑hoc appointment Rules. The State argued that seniority should follow the Tandon decision, which granted seniority based on Public Service Commission selection lists of 1972 and 1977‑79. The Court held that the Mathur precedent remains binding, that the 1979 Rules do not apply to the petitioners, and that seniority must be fixed from the date of their first appointment. It further ruled that selectees who were never issued regular appointment orders can only claim seniority from the date they actually joined service. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed and the State was directed to prepare a seniority list accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the temporary appointees are governed by the U.P. Regulation of Ad‑hoc Appointments Rules, 1979.
Whether seniority of the petitioners should be determined from the date of their initial appointment or from the date of regularisation under the 1979 Rules.
Whether the decision in R.K. Tandon v. State of U.P. is applicable or must be set aside in view of the earlier Mathur judgment.
Whether selectees who were recommended by the PSC but never received regular appointment orders can claim seniority based on the selection lists.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 141, s. Article 309, s. Article 32

Subjects

senioritytemporary appointmentad‑hoc appointmentservice lawUttar Pradesh medical servicesPublic Service Commissionres judicataprecedentRule 1979Rule 1945

Judgment

A DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH AND ORS. ...
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

DECEMBER 4, 2002

B [G.B. PATTANAIK, RUMA PAL AND BRIJESHKUMAR, JJ.]

Service Law-Uttar Pradesh Medical Services-Doctors-Seniority--
Counting of-Held: ls to be counted from the date of their initial appointment
C when made against substantive vacancy-Similarly seniority is to be
determined from the date of appointment and not from the date of selection-
U.P. Regulation of ad-hoc Appointments (On posts within purview .of U.P.
Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979-United Provinces Medical Service
(Men's Branch) Rules, 1945-U.P. Medical Services (Men's Branch)
Amendment Rules, 1981.
D
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 141-Precedeni-Doctrine-
Binding effect of-Held: Decision is followed unless the Court fzas reason to
differ with the view expressed-Jn such event, the issue must be referred to
a larger Bench-However, if the earlier decision has conc/ud~'<j issues in a
particular set offacts in a given Iis between the same parties, such decision
E cannot be reopened on the principles of res judicata except by way of an
application for review.

The question which arose for consideration in these writ petitions is
with regard to inter se seniority between temporary appointees-writ p!titioners
who had been appointed in Provisional Medical Services (PMS) prior to 1972
F against the substantive vacancies after selection by Departmental Selection
Commission and candidates recommended by Public Service Commission for
appointment in 1972. Candidates were also recommended in the 1977-78-79
select list, out of which some of the writ petitioners were temporarily appointed.
However, they were not issued permanent appointment letters. Ther~fter, the
G U.P. Regulation of ad-hoc Appointments (On posts within purview of U.P. Public
Service Commission) Rules, 1979 were issued. ad-hoc appointees could not
count their services which they may have rendered earlier as temporary
appointees. Doctors who had been appointed temporarily were sought to be
regularised under the 1979 Rules after a period o_f probation. In 1983 seniority
list was published and candidates who had been recommended by the PSC for
H
574
DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE 575
appointment in 1972 were placed at the top followed by all the 'temporary A
appointees'. Select List of 1977-78-79 was also cancelled.

One Dr. Mathur along with others temporarily appointed challenged the
decision taken by the State Government to treat them as ad"hoc appointees
under 1979 Rules. High Court held ·that the petitioners could not be treated
as having been appointed on ad hoc basis and that the 1979 Rules did not B
apply to them. Consequently their seniority was not to be fixed from the date
of their regularisation under the 1979 Rules, but from the date of their initial
appointment in the cadre. Aggrieved respondent filed SLP which was
dismissed. In other writ petitions following Mathur's case similar order was
passed. As a consequence of the dedsion in Mathur 's case it was laid down C
that person appointed temporarily against substantive vacancies were entitled
to rank above any other appointees who were subsequently appointed based
on 1972 Select List or 1977-78-79 Select List. However, in subsequent
decision-Tandon 's case 1977-78-79 Select List was revived and it was held
that the candidates selected in 1972 would become senior to all other ad-hoc
appointees, the candidates recommended in 1977-78-79 List would rank below D
1972 appointees and the non-selectees would be given seniority from the date
of their appointment under the 1979 Rules. Pursuant to this, the seniority
list was published. Thereafter aggrieved party filed writ petitions with regard
to the conflict in Tandon 's case and Mathur 's case in this Court. Constitution
Bench set aside the decision in Tandon 's case on the ground that it was in E
conflict with the larger Bench decision (Mathur 's case). However, the Bench
did not decide the inter se right of parties or correctness of Mathur 's case
and remitted the matter to three-Judge Bench. Hence the present writ
petitions.

Writ petitioners contended that they are entitled to seniority from the p
date of their initial appointments on the basis of principles laid down in
Mathur's case; that the select lists prepared in 1972 and 1977-78-79 are not
available with the respondents; that the respondents had not issued any letters
or regular appointment to any selectee till date; that the selectees who had
not been temporarily appointed earlier, were given temporary appointments
after their recommendations by the PSC in 1972 or 1977-78-79, many of them G
joined services much later and now on the basis of the decision in Tandon 's
case they were claiming seniority from the date of their selection whether in
1972 or 1977-78-79 even though they had not joined services at all, they could
not claim seniority on the basis of PSC recommendation which apart from
any other consideration, could not be kept alive for such a long period. H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R,,

A lnterveners, temporarily appointed between 1962 and 1963, who have
since been superannuated claimed the same relief/benefit as the writ
petitioners; interveners, temporary appointees who had challenged their
"appointments" under the 1979 Rules which was allowed holding that they
were entitled to count their· seniority from the date of their initial
B appointments claimed that the orders in their cases had attained finality and
had in fact been given effect to by the respondents and that their status should
not be disturbed; and that the interveners, temporary appointees who had also
obtained orders in their favour and who have since retired from services
without getting any benefit as directed claimed that their orders had attained
finality and should not be re-opened. ·
c The Selectees contended that the decision in Mathur 's case requires
re-consideration since the writ petitioners were appointed on ad hoc/
temporary basis without the approval of the UPPSC; that their appointments ,_
were de hors the Rules and could not be termed as regular merely by passage
of time; that the provisions of U.P. Medical Services (Men's Branch) Rules, ....
D 1945 had been mis-interpreted in Mathur 's case; that the 1945 Rules I

continued to apply to the medical services till 1981; that even assuming that
the 1946 Rules did not apply after 1973, a civil post could be filled up on!y in
consultation with the UPPSC and, therefore, the selectees had been properly
appointed; that in any event the writ petitioners are estopped from challenging
E the selections made by the PSC because most of them had participated in the
selections and were unsuccessful; that the writ petitioners, had obtained the
benefit of regularisation and promotion under the 1979 Rules; and that the
selectees had been given preference in the matter of their appointments for
their post graduate work and if they were reverted, more meritorious
employees would be adversely affected.
F
Allowing the writ petitions, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Constitution Bench held Tandon 's case not to be good law.
This leaves the field with only the principles determined in Mathur 's case. It
is doubtless correct that as long as a decision stands, it has to be followed
G unless the Court has reason to differ with the view expressed. In such event,
the Court must reft'r the issue to a larger Bench. This principle is however
not applicable ifthe earlier decision has concluded issues in a particular set
of facts in a given /is between the same parties. Such a decision cannot be
reopened on the principles of res judicata except by way of an application for
H review. (589-E, Fl
.

DR. CHANDRA PRA.KASH v. STATE 577

1.2. There is no applicat.on for review which requires to reopen the A
issues which were concluded by a Bench of three Judges of this Court about
a decade ago. Writ petitioners claim to be the beneficiaries of the order in
Mathw"s case. They do not seek a review of that decision. It is also not open
to the sclectees to question the correctness of Mathur's decision now. Selectees
and others had the opportunity of ventilating their grievances before the Court. B
None of the respondents responded to the advertisements admittedly published
on the directions of the Court. The order, passed in the writ petition, therefore,
binds them and they cannot seek to reopen the issues concluded thereby. The
order in the writ petition was sought to be impugned before this Court by way
of a special leave petition which was dismissed. There has been no prayer for
review of this order either. [589-G, H; 590-A, BJ C
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Asson. v. State of
Maharashtra, [1990] 2 SCC 715 and Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari
Sangathan v.. State of Maharashtra, (2002] 2 SCC 552, referred to.

1.3. Since the decision in Mathur 's case has been followed consistently D
in a large number of cases since its pronouncement it would not be proper to
upset the principles and introduce further uncertainty in an already chaotic
situation particularly when the matter involves the question of service
conditionsofGover.nment employees. Thus, the issue of seniority of the parties
is to be determined in keeping with the decision in Mathur 's case. Also there
is no materially distinguishing factor between the circumstances of the E
present writ petitions and of the writ petitioners in Mathur's case. [5~C,D,GJ

2.1. The writ petitioners were temporarily appointed by the Governor
against substantive vacancies. There is no dispute that each of the writ
petitioners held an MBBS degree and had the requisite qualifications for being F
appointed under the 1945 Rules, therefore, it could not be said that the writ
petitioners were appointed de hors the service rules. (591-C; 592-BJ

2.2. Under the Medical Service Rules, 1945, the determination of
seniority was from the date of appointment against a substantive vacancy. In
accordance with the Rules and the decision in Mathur's case, appointment G
could be temporary or permanent, but where the appointment is against a
substantive vacancy, the year of appointment was determinative in fixing
seniority under the Rule. On this basis, calculations of writ petitioners'
seniority from the date of their initial appointment cannot be said to be
incorrect. Furthermore, the writ petitioners have been continuing to serve
and had till 1983 enjoyed all the benefits of regular service since their initial H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A appointments like the writ petitioners in Mathur 's case. Therefore, writ
petitioners cannot be treated as 'ad hoc appointees' who were to be regularised
l>y appointment after selection and a period of probation under the I 979 Rules
nor can it be said that the decision in Mathur 's case misconstrued the
provisions of 1979 Rules so as to exclude the temporary appointees like the
B writ petitioners from its application. Hence the writ petitioners are not within
the purview of the 1979 Rules and the State Government will fix the seniority
of all doctors in the PMHS cadre from the date of the orders of their initial
appointment and give all consequential benefits including promotions and
positions on the basis of such seniority list as was granted to the petitioners
in Mathur's case. (592-E-G; 594-A-D)
c Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [2000) 8 SCC
25, referred to.

2.3. The selectees whether selected in 1972 or in 1977-78~79 cannot
claim seniority on the basis of their mere selection, assuming the selection
D lists to be valid. According to the 1945 Rules, the selection made by the PSC
was merely recommendatory. In any event, under Rule 18 seniority is to be
determined from the date of their orders of appointment and not from the date
of their selection by the PSC or receipt of the Selection List by the
Government. In Tandon 's case selectees had not been issued orders of regular
appointment, therefore, they cannot claim seniority over the writ petitioners
E some of whom have been serving since 1965 and the rest at least since 1976.
Assuming that the writ petitioners had appeared before the PSC, it would not
mean that by reason thereof seniority was to be counted from the date of
preparation or submission of the Selection Lists. If the selected 011 the basis
of the decision in Tandon 's case were treated as having been ap110intcd, their
F appointment would at the highest relate to 1996 when this Court directed their
appointments from the date of receipt of the selection lists by the Government;
a direction which was wholly contrary to the Rules. Strictly speaking with
the setting aside of the decision in Tandon 's c2?se the selectees cannot even
have this order to fall back on. But the fact remains that the selectees have
.actually been serving. Therefore, having regard to the peculiar circumstances
G of this case, it would be equitably appropriate to treat those doctors who were
selected in 1972 and 1978-79 by the PSC and who were not issued any orders
of appointment and joined the service on the basis of Tandon 's case as having
ber-.1 appointed on the date they actually joined the service and their seniority
wm i..1.: counted from that date. [593-C, G, H; 594-A-C-El
H 3. The interveners who have final orders in their favour from either
DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 579

this Court or High Court with regard to their appointments and seniority are A
entitled and will continue to enjoy the benefits granted thereby. This decision
will not operate to jeopardlZe the reliefs finally obtained by them from Court.

CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 43 of
1998.
B
(Under Article 32 of Constitution of India)

WITH

W.P. (C) Nos. 237/98, 220/98, 276/98, 532/98, 539/98, 547/98, 176/98,
229/99 and 299/99. ' C
C.S. Vaidyanathan, L. Nageshwara Rao, P.S. Mishra, P.B. Menon and
J.N. Dubey, M.C. Dhingra, Rajeev Sharma, Vinod Shukla, R.C. Verma (N.P.),
Ashok K. Srivastava, J.P. Dhanda, Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, Sunder Khatri,
Arvind Kumar Shukla, Rashid Saeed. Prashant Chaudhary, Praveen Swamp,
lrshad Ahmad, A.K. Sahu, C.D. Singh, Tathagat Arshwardhan, J.P. Singh, S.C. D
Shekhar, Ms. Swarupa Reddy, S.K. Verma, S.K. Misra, K.K. Mohan, Dhan
Singh Nagar, Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Anip Sachthey, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi
Menon, Vishnu, Prashant Kumar, Bela Maheshwari, Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj,
E.C. Vidya Sagar, Pramod SwaruR, Rani Chhabra, Anurag Dubey, Ms. Chitra
Markandaya, K.S. Rana, Jeevan Singh, S.A. Syed and Jitendra Mohan Singh E
for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RUMA PAL, J. A tangled web of facts and law would best describe ibis
case which involves the question of the seniority of doctors in the Uttar F
Pradesh Medical Services. To untangle the factual aspect, we need to start
from 1945.

Prior to 1945 there were two medical services in the state ofU.P - the
Provincial Medical Service (PMS) and Provincial Subordinate Medical Services
(PSMS). On June 14, 1945 the Government ofU.P. framed rules known as 'The G
United Provinces Medical Service (Men's Branch) Rules, 1945' (referred to
hereafter as the '1945 Rules'). In 1946, two new medical services were
constituted, namely, PMS Grade. I and PMS Grade II. On 2nd November, 1964
PMS Grade I and Grade II were merged with effect from 1st November 1964.
However, there were no rules for fixing inter-se seniority of the officers of the
two erstwhile services which were so merged. The issue of the inter-se H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A seniority between the members of the new service as merged i.e. between
PMS I and PMS II, was resolved ultimately by this Court by its .decision in
State of U.P. v. M.J. Siddiqui; [I 980] 3 SCC I 80. As far as recruitment to the
new PMS was concerned by way of a stop gap arrangement the State
Government passed an order dated 20th February 1965 making the I 945 Rules
B applicable to the new PMS. The order said, "The U.P. Medical Service (Men's
Branch) Rules, 1945 shall apply to the new PMS, unless otherwise ordered"
and prescribed the eligibility criteria for appointment:

"The following will be eligible for appointment to PMS:

(A) Medical Graduates of all universities in India recognised by the
c Indian Medical Council.
(B) Medical Graduates who hold the BMBS degree of Lucknow
University, provided they have served in house appointments for
a term of nine months in a teaching hospital before they offer
themselves for appointment."
D
The writ petitioners Nos. l and 2 before us were selected by the
Departmental Selection Committee (DSC) and issued letters of temporary
appointment in the new PMS by the Governor on 24th September 1965 and
30th November 1965 respectively. There is no dispute that they were eligible
to be appointed under the prescribed criteria.
E
The second chapter begins in 1968 when the State Government made
a request to the State Public Service Commission for recruiting doctors to the
medical service of the PMS. The Public Service Commission (PSC) prepared
a Select List in 1972. Some of the respondents are those who came into the
F picture for the first time when they were selected in 1972 by the PSC. The
petitioner No. 2 was also one of the selectees. However, before the select list
could be given effect to, on 26th June 1973 the PMS was merged with the
Provincial Health Service (PHS) and a new cadre was formed, namely, the
Provincial Medical and Health Service (PMHS). With the merger 995 posts of
PHS, 574 posts of PMS (Male) and 19 permanent and 407 temporary posts of
G PMS (Female) i.e. a total of2056 posts stood abolished in the erstwhile PMS
and PHS on the date of the merger therefore 2056 posts were in the new cadre.

Prior to the merger i.e. between 1968 to 1973 some of the writ petitioners
before us were also temporarily appointed like the petitioners 1 and 2, against
substantive posts by the Governor after seJection by the DSC. Temporary
H appointment letters were issued to some of the selectees not on the basis of
DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 581

the Select List but after selection by the DSC. A
The third chapter starts with a letter of the State Government dated I Ith
April 1974 which stated that as there were certain deficiencies in the 1972
Select List the ad hoc appointments of PMS officers would be extended upto
31st October 1973. A request was then sent by the State Government to the
UPPSC for recruitment of 2025 medical officers. During this period also a B
number of persons were. appointed by the State Government on temporary
basis after selection by the DSC till 1976. On 23rd December 1977 the UPPSC
sent a list of 1703 persons selected against the aforesaid posts. Subsequently
by letters dated 16th June 1978 and 18th May 1979, the UPPSC sent two
separate lists of a total of 25 candidates to the Government. Some of the writ C
petitioners who had been temporarily appointed during 1968 to 1976 were
recommended in the 1977-78-79 Select List. However, no letters of permanent
appointment were issued by the Government to any of these I 798 selected
candidates. In other words, during the period 1968 to 1979 there were three
groups of qualified doctors:
D
(I) · Those given temporary appointment and who had also been
selected by PSC;
(2) Those given temporary appointment but were not selected by
PSC;
(3) Those who were selected by PSC without being temporarily E
appointed earlier.

The fourth chapter begins with the issue of the UP Regulation of Ad
hoc Appointments (On posts within the purview of UP Public Service
Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the '1979 Rules'). Rule 7
of the 1979 Rules provides: F
"Saving (1) A person appointed under these rules shall be entitled to
seniority only from the date of order of appointment after selection in
accordance with these rules and shall in all cases, be placed below the
persons appointed in accordance with the relevant service rules or as
-the case may be, the regular prescribed procedure, prior to the G
appointment of such person under these rules.

(2) If two or more persons are appointed together, their seniority inter
se shall be determined to the undermentioned in the order of
appointment."
' H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A In terms of the 1979 Rules the 'ad hoc appointees' could not count their
services which they may have rendered earlier as temporary appointees. Thus
the doctors who had been appointed temporarily upto 1976 were sought to
be regularized under the 1979 Rules and letters of appointment were issued
to them, after a period of 'probation', whereby they were treated as having
joined the service with effect from the date of these appointinent letters. A
B seniority list was published in 1983 in which the candidates who had been
recommended by the PSC for appointment in 1972 were placed at the top
followed by all the 'temporary appointees' like the writ petitioners although
almost all of them had been appointed at least temporarily much prior to the
1972 selectees who had not been issued regular appointment letters at all.
c On 13th March 1984, the State Government issued an order which was
communicated to the UPPSC that the Select List prepared by the UPPSC for
the year 1977, 1978 and 1979 was cancelled and would not be given effect to.

All these facts gave rise to litigation by the different groups. The first
D set of litigation was filed by the temporary appointees before the Allahabad
High Court. Three separate writ petitions were filed by Dr. H.C. Mathur, Dr.
P.L. Nigam and Dr. Jagdish Narayan Rai. All three of them had been appointed
temporarily to the PMS prior· to its merger with PMHS and had been
continuously working since the date of their respective appointments. They
impugned the decision taken by the State Government to treat them as ad hoc
E appointees under the 1979 Rules. The High Court disposed of these three writ
petitions by a common judgment dated 26th April 1991 (hereinafter referred
to for the sake of convenience as 'Mathur 's case'). The High Court noted that
the petitioners had been appointed and selected temporarily pursuant to
notifications for filling up of posts and in consultation with the UPPSC. All
F the petitioners had MBBS degrees with the requisite experience and were
entitled to be appointed against the vacancies then existing. Although the
petitioners were appointed temporarily their appointments were against
substantive vacancies. The Court also noted that the Civil List which had
been published in 1967 showed that the temporary PMS officers like the
petitioners in Mathur 's case had been approved by the UPPSC. The High
G Court held that the petitioners could not be treated as having been appointed
on ad hoc basis and that the 1979 Rules did not apply to them. Consequently
their seniority was not to be fixed from the date of their regularisation under
the 1979 Rules, namely 1982, but from the date of their initial appointment in
the PMS cadre.
H >(
'
DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. Sr ATE [RlJMA PAL, J.] 583

The State of U.P. filed e. special leave petition from the decision of the A
High Court in Mathur 's case. This was dismissed by this Court on 24th
November 1992 by a reasoned order in which this Court said. "We see no
infirmity in the judg1nent of the High Court. We agree with the reasoning and
the conclusions reached therein". This order was passed by a Bench ofthree-
Judges of this Court.
B
Several other writ petitions had also been filed by temporary appointees.
Writ Petition No. 6227/81 by the High Court was treated as a representative
writ petition. Pursuant to directions of the High Court, notices were published
in the 'Northern India Patrika' and 'The Sunday Pioneer' on 22nd May 1988.
In those notices, the contentions of the petitioners were ;ndicated. By order C
dated 9th September 1981, the High Court held that the issues raised were
covered by tht: judgment of the High Court in Mathur 's l1:>>-: and accordingly
si1nilar relief was granted to the writ petitioners. The Special Leave Pettt.• ••
from W.P. No. 6227/81 filed by the State was dismissed on 2 lst January 199.'.

Thereafter in a number of writ petitions, namely, W.P.No.3550/88 Dr. VP. D
Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P.; W.P. No. 6368/82 Raj Nath Sharma and Ors.
v. State of U.P.; W.P. No. 6124/91 Ram Jee Khare and Anr. v. State of V.P.
and Anr. the High Court passed orders following the decision in Mathur's
case. Each of the special leave petitions preferred by the State of U.P. from
the several decisions of the High Court were dismissed by this Court. Apart
from this there were three other decisions such as CMWP No.7281/93 etc. E
where the State did not file any SLP although the High Court had followed
the decision in Mathur 's case.

As a consequence of the decision in Mathur 's Case, those persons who
had been appointed temporarily against substantive posts were entitled to F
rank above any other appointees who were subsequently appointed either on
the basis of the 1972 Select List or the 1977-78-79 Select List.

The second set of litigation commenced in 1993 with the case of Dr. P. C.
Aggarwal and Ors. v. State of UP., (CMWP 10315/82). The Division Bench
of the High Court reiterated the view taken in Mathur 's case and directed the G
writ petitioners who were originally temporary PMS appointees to be given
seniority taking into account the services rendered by them from the date of
their respective appointments. The decision of P.C. Aggarwal was followed
by the same High Court in several writ petitions. (CMWP No. 12257/89 and
18781/89Dr. G. AgnihotriandOrs. v.StateofV.P.;CMPWNo. 18781/89and
CMPWNo.12267/89 Dr. Maheshpa/ and Ors. v. State ofV.P., W.P. No. 4163/ H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 93 Dr. Riyazul Hasan v. State of UP. and Ors.; CMWP No._of 1993 FM.
Pachari and Ors. v. State of UP. and Ors.; CMPW No._of 1993 Dr. Sanat
•.
Kr. Ghosh v. State of UP. and Ors. The State did not impugn some of the
decisions which had been decided following Mathur 's and Aggqrwal's case.
However, it filed a special leave petition against the decision in P.C. Aggarwal 's
case and in five other matters. It appears from the records that no notices
B were issued on these special leave petitions which only came to be tagged
with another matter, namely, C.A. No. 4438-42 of I 995 - State of UP. v. R.K.
Tandon and Ors.

This brings us to the final set of litigation. These were initiated by those
C persons who claimed appointment on the basis of the 1977-78-79 Select List.
Several petitions were filed before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal challenging
the decision of the State Government to cancel the Select List of I 977-78-79.
The Tribunal allowed the petitions and cancelled the Government's order
thereby reviving the 1977-78-79 Select List. The State Government appealed
from the Tribunal's decision. The High Court modified.the order of the Tribunal
D holding that only the 14 petitioners before the Tribunal who were working on
ad hoc basis would be deemed to have been appointed when the vacancies
were first filled by regularisation and they would be entitled to seniority and
other benefits accordingly. From this decision, the State of U.P. filed several
special leave petitions in which the Court allowed leave to appeal. The lead
E appeal was W. P. No.7066of1986 and 5809of1987 - State of UP. v. R.K.
Tandon and Ors. and is hereinafter referred to as 'Tandon 's case'. The batch
of special leave petitions challenging the decision in P. C. Aggarwal were also
tagged with the appeal in Tandon's case. On 23rd March, 1995 a Bench of
two learned Judges of this Court ?isposed of Tandon 's appeal as also the
several tagged special leave petitions without any notice having been issued
F in those petitions. The Court held:

(I) As the PSC had notified, selected and recommended the names
ofcandidates in 1972 they were entitled to be appointed and the
State Government was directed to appoint them with effect from
the date on which the State Government had received the merit
G list from PSC.
(Il) Those candidates whose names were recommended in 1977, 1978
and 1979 were directed to be appointed in the order of merit in
their respective lists. Their seniority would be determined on the
basis of their position in the respective list and they would be
H deemed to have been appointed from the date on which the
DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.) 585

State Government had received the list. They would be placed A
below the appointees in Class I.
(lll) The remaining candidates were the ad hoc appointments made de-
hors the rules and therefore though the doctors had put in more
than 33 years of service they remained ad hoc hands and would
not get seniority from the respective dates of their appointments. B
However, those of them who had been granted benefit of regularity
of service from the dates of their appointments by Court and who
had retired would not be affected by the decision of this Court
as those matters had become final. Their appointments would be
merely notional only for the purpose of giving them seniority and
retiral benefits admissible according to the relevant rules and C
would not disturb interse seniority among the other doctors
appointed in the service. Otherwise those who had not been
selected but. were still continuing in service would be placed
last and their seniority would be determined with effect from the
date of their regularisation under the 1979 Rules and their D
respective dates of appointment thereunder.

The writ petitioners in Tandon 's case filed a contempt application before
this Court alleging violation by the State Government of the order dated 23rd
March 1995 by non-framing of a seniority list in keeping with that judgment.
While disposing of the contempt application the Court also took notice of E
Intervenor applications by those in whose favour the High Court had passed
orders and against which special leave petitions had been filed and disposed
of all the applications by an order dated 26th July 1996. By this order, the
Court noted that letters of appointment had not in fact been issued to either
the persons on the 1972 Select List or the persons in the 1977, 1978 and 1979
Select List. Nevertheless it reiterated the stand that the candidates selected F
in the year 1972 would become senior to all other ad hoc appointees since
they were continuing on ad hoc basis. It was also held that the candidates
recommended by the PSE in the Lists of 1977-78-79 would rank below the 1972
appointees and that as far as "non selectees" were concerned they would be
governed by Rule 7 of the 1979 Rules and given seniority from the date of G
their appointments under the 1979 Rules. It was made clear that the order
"would cover all the cases and would apply to all the candidates who are
concerned in the service and that "the Government would determine their
inter-se seniority in accordance with these directions within four months".

In compliance with the orders dated 23rd March 1995 and 26th July H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 1996, the Government published a seniority list on 24th November 1996 which
placed the persons who had been placed as the senior most by virtue of
Mathur 's case at the bottom of the seniority list. It was in these circumstances
that several writ petitions were filed in this Court stating that the decision of
this Court in Tandon 's case was directly in conflict with the earlier decision
of this Court in Mathur 's case and that since the decision in Tandon 's case
B was rendered by a Bench of a lesser number of Judges than in Mathur 's case,
this Court should reaffirm the principles already laid down in Mathur's case
and fix the seniority of all the doctors in PMHS cadre from the date of their
initial appointment and declare that Rule 7 of the I 979 Rules did not apply
to them at all.
c The matter was placed before a bench of three-Judges. By an order
dated 4th February 1999, this Court noted that there were five categories of
persons in the service:

l. Those persons who are in service as temporary recruits and who
D have not been selected by the Public Service Commission but are
given seniority from the date of joining service on the basis of
Court orders passed by the High Court or by a bench of three
Hon'ble Judges of this Court;

2. Those persons who were in service as temporary recruits and
E who have been later selected by the Public Service Commission
in 1972;

3. Those persons who were in service as temporary recruits and
who have been later selected by the Public Service Commission
during the years 1977, 1978 and 1979;
F
4. Those persons who are in service as temporary recruits and who
have not got the benefit of any order of the High Court or this
Court i.e. (those temporary recruits other than unselected
temporary recruits falling in Category 1). These persons are the
persons affected by the U .P. Regularisation of Ad hoc
G Appointments (of Posts within the Purview of the Public Service
Commission) Rules, 1979;

5. Fresh recruits who were selected by the Public Service Commission
in 1977, 1978 and 1979 and who have been subsequently
appointed."
H
DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE [RUMA PAL. J.] 587

It was also noted that there would be pensioners falling in each of the A
categories. The Court directed the State of U.P. to issue notice in two daily
newspapers, namely, 'Amar Ujala' in Hindi and 'Times of India', Lucknow
Edition in English and stated that the matters would be heard by this Court
and those persons whose seniority was likely to be affected were entitled to
come before this Court to put forward their point of view including all those
persons were governed by earlier Court orders. A circular was also directed B
to be issued to the same effect by the State to all District Headquarters.

After publication and completion of the procedures as directed, this
Court by order dated 17th August 2000 referred the writ petitiJns to a Bench
of five-Judges for disposal in view of the dissimilarity of views expressed in C
Tandon 's case and Mathur 's case.

Before the bench of five-Judges, it was contended by the respondent
that there was in fact no conflict between the decisions in Mathur 's and
Tandon 's case. The Court by its judgment dated 4th April 2002 held that there
was a conflict and that having regard to the doctrine of precedent, the D
decision of this Court in Tandon 's case dated 23rd March 1995 as modified
on 26th July 1996 could not stand. However, since the decision in Tandon 's
case was being set aside only on the ground that it was in conflict with a
larger Bench decision, the Constitution Bench did not decide the inter-se
rights of the petitioners and the other respondents or the correctness of the
judgment in Mathur's case. The writ petitions were accordingly remitted back E
to the three-Judges Bench to be disposed of finally on merits.

The matters have thereafter been placed before us for final disposal.

According to the writ petitioners they were appointed on temporary
basis against substantive vacancies in accordance with the Rules prevalent F
at the time of their respective appointments. They had the requisite
qualifications and their appointments were made after selection by the DPC,
after sanction granted by the Governor and with the approval of the PSC.
They claim to have at least continued to serve in such substantive vacancies
after consultation with the PSC and had been granted leave benefits, G
promotions, increments and other service benefits of regular service. They
therefore claim seniority from the date of their initial appointments on the
principles laid down in Mathur 's case. According to the petitioners the PSC
select lists prepared in 1972 and 1977-78-79 are not available with the State
respondents as they have been admittedly destroyed or misplaced and the
1996 seniority list was purportedly based on them. It is stated that State H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Government has not issued any letters of regular appointment to any selectee
till today. It is contended that the selectees who h.ad not been temporarily
appointed earlier, were given temporary appointments after their
recommendations by the PSC in 1972 or 1977-78-79. Many of them joined
services on the basis of these orders of tempor(!ry appointment much later.
Now on the basis of the decision in Tandon 's case, they were claiming
B seniority from the date of their selections whether in 1972 or 1977-78-79 even
though they had. not joined services at all then. It is submitted that the
selectees could not claim seniority on the basis of PSC recommendation
which apart from any other consideration, could not be kept alive for such -.
a long period.
c Supporting the case of the writ petitioners are the interveners. The first
category of interveners are those who were also temporarily appointed between
1962 and 1963 and who have since been superannuated. They claim the same
relief/benefit as the writ petitioners. The second category of lnterveners are
those temporarily appointed doctors who had challenged their "appointments"
D under the 1979 Rules by way of writ applications and whose writ petitions
have been allowed by the High Court holding that they were entitled to count
their seniority from the date of their initial appointments. They claim that the
orders in their cases had attained finality and have in fact been given effect
by the State Government and that their status should not be disturbed. The
E third category of interveners are those temporary appointees who had also
obtained orders in their favour on writ applications filed by them before the
Allahabad High Court, the special leave petitions wherefrom have been
dismissed and who. have since retired from services without getting any
benefit as directed by the Allahabad High Court. They claim that their orders
had attained finality and should not be re-opened.
F
As against these submissions the selectees have contended that the
decision in H. C. Mathur 's case requires re-consideration since the writ
petitioners were appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis without the approval
of the UPPSC. Their appointments were de hors the Rules and could not be
termed as regular merely by a passage of time. It is further contended that
G the provisions of the U.P. Medical Services Men's Branch Rules 1945 had
been mis-interpreted in Mathur's case. It is contended that the 1945 Rules
continued to apply to the medical services till 1981. Even assuming that the
1945 Rules did not apply after 1973, a civil post could be filled up only in
consultation with the UPPSC and therefore the selectees by the PSC had been
H properly appointed. It was contended that in any event the writ petitioners
DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, I.] 589

are estopped from challenging the selections made by tht PSC because most A
of them had participated in the selections and were unsuccessful. The writ
petitioners, according to the selectees, had obtained the benefit of regularisation
and further promotion under the 1979 Rules. The selectees had been given
preference in the matter of their appointments for their post graduate wo~k
and if they :.vere reverted, more meritorious employees would be adversely
affected. The prayer of the selectees is that Mathur 's case should be referred B
to a larger bench for its decision.

We are unable to accept the submissions of the selectees. Although, it
is not necessary to go into the correctness of the reasoning in Tandon 's case
when it has been set aside by the Constitution Bench, nevertheless it needs C
to be noted that the 14 writ petitioners in that case had only challenged the
cancellation of the 1977-78-79 Selection List. They wanted appointtnent on
the basis of the Selection List. The question of inter se seniority with other
members of the Medical Service was not in issue. The Court, however,
determined the issue of seniority in the absence of the interested groups.
Since both the orders in Tandon's case have been set aside, the seniority as D
determined by those orders can no longer be relied upon. The disposal of the
Interlocutory Applications filed by those who had obtained orders from the
High Court following Mathur 's case, by the order dated 26th July, 1976
cannot also stand, since both this order as well as the order dated 23rd March
1995 in Tandon 's case have been held by the Constitution Bench to be "not E
good law". By the same token, since the 1996 seniority list was prepared on
the basis of this Court's decisions in Tandon's case, with the setting aside of
the latter, the list cannot be held to have been validly prepared. This leaves
the field with only the principles as determined in Mathur's case. It is doubtless
correct that as long as a decision stands, it has to be followed unless the
Court has reason to differ with the view expressed. In such event, the Court F
must refer the issue to a larger Bench. This principle is however not applicable
if the earlier decision has concluded issues in a particular set of facts in a
given !is between the same parties. Such a decision cannot be reopened on
the principles of res judicata except by way of an application for review.

There is no application for review which requires us to reopen the G
issues which were concluded by a Bench of three-Judges of this Court about
a decade ago. The writ petitioners before us claim to be the beneficiaries of
the order in Mathur 's case. They do not seek a review of that decision. It is
also not open to the selectees to question the correctness ofMathur's decision
now. Selectees and others had the opportunity of ventilating their grievances H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A before the Court in Writ Petition (C) No.6227 of 198 l which was a
representative action. None of the respondents responded to the advertisements
admittedly published on the directions of the Court. The order passed. in
W.P.No. 6227 /8 l on 9th September 198 l, therefore, binds them and they
cannot seek to reopen the issues concluded thereby. 1 We have already noted
that the order in W.P.6227/81 was sought to be impugned before this Court
B by way of a special leave petition which was dismissed on 21st March 1993.
There has been no prayer for review of this order either.

Besides the decision in Mathur 's case has been followed consistently
in a large number of cases since its pronouncement by the High Court in
C 199 l and by this Court in 1992. Special leave petitions from those decisions
have also been dismissed by this Court. It would not be proper in these
circumstances to upset the principles and introduce further uncertainty in an
already chaotic situation particularly when the matter involves the question
of service conditions of Government employees.

D In these circumstances, the issue of seniority of the parties before us is
to be determined in keeping with the decision in Mathur 's case.

The questions therefore are:-

(1) Are the cases of the writ petitioners different from writ petitioners
in Mathur 's case ?
E
(2) What would be the position of those who have been appointed
on the basis of the decision in Tandon 's case?

Before answering the questions we wish to make it clear that the
interveners who have final orders in their favour from either this Court or the
F High Court with regard to their appointments and seniority, are entitled and
will continue to enjoy the benefits granted thereby. This decision will not
operate to jeopardize the reliefs finally obtained by them from Court.

As far as the writ petitioners are concerned we see no materially
distinguishing factor between their circumstances and the writ petitioners in
G Mathur 's case.

We have already noted the facts in Mathur 's case b1;1t it is convenient
to recapitulate the facts briefly for the purpose of comparison with the writ
I. Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Assn. v. State ofMaharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC
715 and Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sangathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2002] 2
H sec 552.
DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE [RUMA PAL. J.] 591
petitioners' cases before us. The petitioners in Mathur 's case were qualified A
to be appointed in what was then known as PMS. The High Court upheld the
claim that they were eligible le> be appointed according to the Rules framed
in 1981 amending the 1945 Rules with effect from 4.10.1961. They had been
temporarily appointed against substantive vacancies and their appointment in
continuous service was in consultation with PSC. Even though their B
appointments were stated to be temporary in their appointment letters, they
were not treated as ad hoc appointees at all till the State sought to appoint
them in 1982 under the 1979 ·Rules and fix their seniority with effect from
3rd August 1982 ignoring the 20 years of service put in by them from the
date of their initial appointments.

The writ petitioners before us were temporarily appointed by the
c
Governor against substantive vacancies. The petitioner No. I and 2 were
appointed in 1965. For example, the letter of appointment of the petitioner
No. I dated 22.9.1965 states that he was appointed as temporary PMS Officer
"as per the approval of Government". The appointment was" for the period
of one year or till the services are required by the Government or till you ·are D
replaced by a candidate duly selected by Public Service Commission whichever
is earlier"_ The other letters of appointment issued upto 1976 use similar
language. What is clear from the language is that the appointments were
made against substantive vacancies. In the Civil List published on 1.7.1967
which was compiled in the Appointment Department of the State Civil E
Secretariat under the heading "Temporary officers approved by Lok Sewa
Ayog", the petitioner No. I's name appears against Sri. No. 336. The names
of the writ petitioners similarly temporarily appointed upto 1976 were
published in the Official Gazette.

It has been earlier noted that prior to the merger of the PMS with the p
PHS in 1973, the 1945 Rules were made applicable to the PMS by Notification
dated 20th February 1965. After the 1973 merger and the creation of PMHS,
no specific rules laying down service conditions of the new service were
framed. On 23 .11.1981, the State Government issued a notification under
Article 309 promulgating the Uttar Pradesh Medical Services (Men's Branch)
(Amendment) Rules 1981, Rule I (ii) states that: G
"They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from
4.10.1961".

By the 1981 Amendment, Rule 10 of the 1945 Rules was amended.
This appears to indicate that, if at all, the 1945 Rules continued to apply to H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the PMHS. Rule I 0 of the l 945 Rules provided the academic qualifications
of a candidate for recruitment to the service. These included an M.8. or an
equivalent degree of a university established by law in India and. recognized
by t!ie Medical Council of India. By the 1981 amendment, "a candidate who
possessed a BMBS degree from Lucknow University having served in houses
appointments, a term of nine months in a teaching hospital (sic)" was also
B made eligible. There is no dispute that each of the writ petitioners held an
MBBS degree and had the requisite qualifications for being appointed under
the 1945 Rules.

Rule 17 (2) of the 1945 Rules provides:

C "The Governor may make appointments in temporary or officiating
vacancies from amongst persons .who are eligible for permanent
appointment to the service under these rules".

It could not, therefore, be said as was held in Tandon 's case that the
writ petitioners were appointed de hors the service rules. As far as the question
D of seniority is concerned, Rule 18 of the 1945 Rules reads as follows:

Seniority - "Seniority in the service shall ~e determined by the date
of the order of appointment in a substantive vacancy provided that if
two or more candidates are appointed on the same date their seniority
shall be determined according to the order in which their names are
E mentioned in the order of appointment".

Thus even under the Medical Service Rules 1945, the determination of
seniority under those rules was from the date of appointment against a
substantive vacancy. It is clear that in accordance with the Rules, and as held
F by the High Court in Mathur 's case, appointment could be temporary or
permanent. But where the appointment is against a substantive vacancy, the
year of appointment was determinative in fixing seniority under the Rule. On
\....
this basis, calculations of the writ petitioners' seniority from the date of their '
initial appointment cannot be said to be incorrect. Furthermore It has not
been disputed that the writ petitioners have been continuing to serve and had
G till 1983 enjoyed all the benefits of regular service since their initial
appointments like the writ petitioners in Mathur 's case. As held in Rudra
Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [2000] 8 SCC 25 at para
20:

"In the service jurisprudence, a person who possess the requisite .~

H qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he is
DR. CHANDRA PR".'KASH v. STA TE [RUMA PAL. I. 593

appointed with the approval and consultation of the appropriate A
authority and continues in the post for a fairly long period, then such
an appointment cannot be held to be "stopgap 6t fortuitous or purely
ad hoc."

The writ petitioners cannot, for all these reasons, be treated as 'ad hoc
appointees' who were to be regularised by appointment after selection and a B
period of probation under the 1979 Rules nor can it be said that the decision
in H.C. Mathur's case mis-construed the provisions of the 1979 Rules so as
to exclude temporary appointees like the writ petitioners from its application.

In the circumstances the writ petitioners are entitled to be granted the
same relief as was granted to the petitioners in Mathur 's case and count their C
seniority from the date of th~ir initial appointments.

The 'selectees' on the other hand whether selected in 1972 or in 1977-
78-79 cannot claim seniority on the basis of their mere selection, assuming
the selection lists to be valid. According to the 1945 Rules, the selection D
made by the PSC was merely recommendatory.

This is settled law and is also so provided in Rule 13 (3) and ( 4) which
read as follows (where the reference to the Commission is the PSC):

"13 (3) The Commission shall draw up a list of such candidates as it E
considers suitable for appointment in order of preference and shall
forward it to the Government.

13 (4) Subject to the provisions of rules 6 and 16 (2) the Governor
shall appoint as vacancies(sic) the candidates who stand highest in
order of performance in the list preferred by the Commission under F
sub Rule (3), provided that he is satisfied that they are duly qualified
in other prospects ".

That selection does not mean automatic appointment also follows from
Rule 16 (2) which provides:

"Before a candidate is finally approved for appointment by direct
G
requirement he shall be required to pass an examination by a Medical
Board, which shall be conducted after he has been selected by the
Commission".

In any event as already noted, under Rule 18 seniority is to be determined H
'
594 SUPn.EME coun.t ltEPORTS t2002] SUPP. 4 s.t.R.

A from the date of their prders of apptllfltment nod hot ftort1 the date df their
selection by the PSC or re~eipt of the Selection List by the Govetilh1eht. As
noted in Tandon 's case, the selettees had not been Issued orders of regular
appointment at all. Clearly, therefore, they tahiiot dairtt seniority over the
writ petitioners some of who1t1 have been servi11g sinee I 965 and the rest at
least since 1976. Assuming that the writ petitiohers had ilppeated before the
B PSC, it would not mean that by reason therenf !Seniority was to be c::ounted
from the date of preparation or submission of the Selection Lists. lf the
selectees on the basis of the decisiun in Tahdo11 1s case Were treated as having
been appointed, their appointment would at the highest reiate to 1996 when
this Court directed their appointments from the date of receipt of the selection
C lists by the Government; a direction which was wholly t:ohtrary to the k.ules.
Strictly speaking with the setting aside of the decision in Tandon 's case the
selectees cannot even have this order to fall back on. But the fact remains
that the selectees have actually been serving. Therefore having regard to the
peculiar circumstances of this case, it would , in our viewi be equitably
appropriate to treat them as having been appointed from the date on which
D they actually joined the service.
•.
We accordingly allow the writ petitions and declare that l) the writ
petitioners are not within the purview of the 1979 Rules; 2) the State
Government will fix the seniority of all doctors in the PMHS cadre from the
date of the orders of their initial appointment within a period of six weeks
E from the date of this order and give all consequential benefits including
promotions and positions on the basis of such seniority list; 3) Those doctors
who were selected in 1972 and 1977-78-79 by the PSC and who were not
issued any orders of appointment and joined the service on the basis of
Tandon 's case, will be treated as having been appointed on the date that they
F actually joined the service and their seniority will be· counted from that date.
There will be no order as to costs.

N.J. Petitions allowed.