Supreme Court of India
DR. P. P. C. RAWANI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1298
- Decided
- 14 November 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The 1991 order requires promotion of only the senior‑most regularised doctor in a super‑numerary post when a regularly appointed doctor is promoted, and does not constitute contempt or a general precedent.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined two earlier orders (9 April 1987 and 29 October 1991) that directed the regularisation of ad‑hoc doctors and the preparation of separate seniority lists for them and for doctors recruited regularly through the UPSC. The petitioners (regularised doctors) claimed the Union of India was in contempt for not promoting every regularised doctor who was senior to a regularly appointed doctor that received a promotion, while the respondents (regularly appointed doctors) argued that only one senior regularised doctor should be promoted in a super‑numerary post. The Court clarified that the 1991 order requires promotion of only the senior‑most regularised doctor in a super‑numerary post when a regularly appointed doctor is promoted, and does not mandate promotion of all earlier regularised doctors. It further held that the orders are merely interpretative instructions and do not lay down a general principle of law or create a precedent for other service disputes. Consequently, the Court found no contempt and disposed of the contempt petitions and the applications for clarification/modification.
Issues considered
- The correct interpretation of the 29 October 1991 order regarding promotion of regularised doctors
- Whether the Union of India’s actions constitute contempt of court
- Whether the 1987 and 1991 orders create a general legal principle applicable to other service cases
- Whether regularised doctors are entitled to substantive promotions or only super‑numerary posts
Legislation cited
Subjects
senioritypromotionregularisationad‑hoc doctorssuper‑numerary postscontempt of courtservice lawpublic service recruitmentUPSCinterpretation of orders
Judgment
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 61
DR. P. P. C. RAWANI & ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Contempt Petition (C) No.169 of 2005)
B
NOVEMBER 14, 2008
[S.B. SINHA, R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MAR.KANDEY
. KATJU, JJ.]
Service Law:
c
Seniority and promotion - Regularization ofservices of
doctors appointed on ad-hoc basis - Supreme Courl vide
its order dated 9.4.87 directing regularization and laying down
the manner of determining inter se seniority among such D
regularised doctors - Appointment of doctors on regular basis
- Filing of petitions by regularized and regularly appointed
doctors for protection of their respective interest with regard
to promotion - Supreme Court vide its order dated
29.10.1991 directing Union of India to draw separate seniority E
list and give promotion in terms of directions contained in
the order - Non-compliance - Contempt Petition and
clarification petitions filed by both the parlies - Held: Vide
Orders dated 9.4.1987 and 29.10.1991, this Courl made it
clear that regularized doctors cannot steal a march over the
regularly appointed doctors - To protect the interest of F
regularly appointed doctors in regard to seniority and
promotion, respondent was directed to prepare separate
seniority lists of regularized and regularly appointed doctors
- The clarification order did not mean that if one regularly
appointed doctor was promoted all regularized doctors G
appointed earlier to his appointment should be promoted to
higher post by creating supernumerary posts - Such an
interpretation would lead to an absurd result - Having regard
to different interpretation put forth by regular doctors and
61 H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
A regularized doctor, it cannot be said that respondents
disobeyed order of this Court by their action or inaction -
Interpretation of Statutes - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
1
The issue arose for consideration in these contempt
petitions was about the interpretation of the order of the
B
Supreme Court dated 9.4.1987 and clarificatory order
dated 29.10.1991 in earlier round of litigation. Earlier,
while disposing of the Civil appeal and the Writ Petition
filed by the doctors appointed on adhoc basis, the
Supreme Court directed respondent-Union of India, to
C regularize the services of these doctors from the date of
· their initial appointm.ent and to determine seniority inter
se among them with reference to the dates of their initial
appointments. Later, Union of India filed an application
for modification/clarification of earlier order putting forth ...
D some difficulties in ill)plementing the order dated 9.4.1987
as it felt that several. regularly appointed doctors might
be relegated to secondary position. The regularly
appointed doctors a!so filed an application praying for
protection of their il!terest. The Supreme Court vide its
E order dated 29.10.1991 directed the respondent to
prepare separate l!_eniority lists of regularized and
regularly appointed .doctors so that there would be no
disturbance of the seniority of the regularly appointed
doctors and laid down the manner of promotions
F Contempt Petition was filed by the regularized doctors
alleging non-complia,nce of th~ order of the Court by the
respondent. Regul'!rly appointed doctors also filed
contempt petition contending that if the clarificatory order
dated 29.10.1991 is construed In the manner put forth by
G the regularized doctors, it would adversely affect their
seniority and also promotional prospects which were
specifically protected in terms of directions Nos.(2) and
(4) of the order dated 29.10.1991 issued by the Court.
Disposing of the Contempt Petitions and
H
DR. P. P. C. RAWANI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & 63
ORS.
applications for clarification and modification, the Court A
HELD: 1.1. The genesis of the problem relates back
to the order of this Court dated 9.4.1987. Two things are
evident from the said order. First is that this Court, in
passing the said order, did not adjudicate upon the rights
or claims of the ad hoc appointees on merits. The matters B
were disposed merely recording the submission of the
respondents that all ad hoc appointees were regularized
or will be regularized. The ·second is that the direction
relating to the seniority of regularized doctors in that
order, is not with reference to regularized doctors vis-a- C
vis regularly appointed doctors, but only inter-se among
the ad hoc doctors who were regularized. [Para 7] [70-G-
H; 71-A]
1.2. The orders dated 9.4.1987 and 29.10.1991 of this
Court make it clear that this Court did not intend any D
regularized doctor to steal a march over the regularly
appointed doctors, either individually or as a group. To
ensure that the seniority and promotional prospects of
regularly recruited doctors were not affected, this court
directed a separate seniority list in respect of the E
regularized doctors and clarified that their promotions will
only be in supernumerary posts to be created. [Para 8]
[71-F-G]
1.3. If all the ad hoc doctors were to be regularized
with effect from the date of their initial appointment, with F
seniority also from the date of initial appointment, there
will be no difference between regular recruitment and
regularization of ad hoc appointments, thereby defeating
the very purpose of systematic regular recruitment
through UPSC. Ad hoc or stop gap appointees were not G
normally regularized and given seniority from the date of
initial appointment. [Para 9] [72-8-C]
1.4. When this Court vide its order dated 9.4.1987
directed that regularized doctors shall have seniority from
the date of their initial appointment, it was only a direction H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
A intended to regulate the seniority inter-se the regularized
doctors as this Court found that among the ad hoc
appointees, regularization was not being effected in
accordance with seriority and some who were
subsequently appointe:d were being regularized earlier
B and some who earlier ~ppointed were being regularized
later. It was not intended to affect the seniority of regularly
appointed doctors. The regularized doctors cannot
occupy the posts meant' for regular doctors, either at entry
level or at higher promdtional levels. [Para 9] [72-D-E]
'
C 1.5. When the clarificatory order dated 29.10.1991 was
passed, this Court took care to direct that promotions of
regularized doctors will only be in supernumerary posts.
This Court also directed that promotion of any
regularized doctor will; be on par with the promotion of
D the regularly.recruited doctor who is immediately junior
to the regularized doctor. This meant that if one regularly
appointed doctor was promoted, one regularized doctor
(that is, the senior most from those regularized doctors
'
whose date of initial appointment was earlier to that of
E said promoted regularly appointed doctor) was to be
promoted by creating .a supernumerary post. [Para 10]
[72-F-H; 73-A]
Dr. PPG Rawani v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 331,
referred to.
F
1.6. The clarificatory order dated 29.10.1991 did not
mean that if one regularly appointed doctor was
promoted, all regularized doctors appointed earlier to his
appointment, should 'be promoted to a higher post by
creating that many number of supernumerary posts. Such
G an interpretation wilf lead to absurd results and give
undue advantage in promotions to regularized doctors
who are outside the cadre. [Para 10] [73-B-C]
1.7. Having regard to the different interpretations put
H forth by the regular doctors and regularized doctors, it
DR. P. P. C. RAWANI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & 65
ORS ..
cannot be said that the respondents disobeyed the A
orders of this Court by their action or inaction. [Para 11)
[73-G]
2.1. It is made clear that what is stated above is only
an interpretation of the orders dated 9.4.1987 and
8
29.10.1991. Neither the order dated 9.4.1987 nor the
clarificatory order dated 29.10.1991 lays down any
principle of law in regard to either regularization or inter
se seniority between regular appointe.es and regularized
appointees. The order dated 29.10.1991 merely attempted
to give finality to an issue which had arisen in the context C
of the order dated 9.4.1987 which was in the nature of a
consent order. [Para 12] [7 4-A-B] .
M.A. Haque v. Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 213, referred
to. D
2.2. It is made clear that neither the directions in the
order dated 29.10.1991 nor the clarification of those
directions by this order, shall be construed as an
enunciation of any general principle nor be applied as a
. precedent in any other case relating to any dispute E
between regularly appointed employees and regularized
employees. [Para 12] [75-E]
Case Law Reference :
(1996) 10 sec 177 referred to Para 8 F
(1992) 1 SCC 331 referred to Para 3
(1993) 2 SCC 213 referred to Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Conmt. Pet.(C) No.
169/2005 C.P.(C) No. 615/2004. G
IN
C.M.P. No.8076/1988.
IN H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
A C.A. No. 3519/1984
WITH
Conmt. Pet(C) No. 160 of2005 In C.A. No. 3519/1984, I.A.
Nos. 1,3-5 & 6 In C.A. No. 3519/1984.
B
R. Mohan and R. Maha, ASGs, K.V. Viswanathan, . K.V.
Venkataraman, Atul Kumar Sinha (for Devendra Singh), Naresh
Kaushik, Salish Dayanadan, Parag Goyal, Arnita Kalkal (for
Lalita Kaushik), Sandhya Goswami (for Sushma Suri), Prerna
C Kumari, Naveen R. Nath, Nikhil Nayyar for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Contempt Petition No.160/
o 2005 is filed by the doctors regularly recruited through Union
Public Service Commission (UPSC, for short). Contempt
Petition No. 169/2005' is filed by the doctors who were
appointed on ad hoc basis between 1968 and 1977 and whose
services were regularized with effect from 1.1.1973 or from the
E date of their initial appointment.
2. Civil Appeal No.3519/1984 and Writ Petition No.1228/
1986, filed by some Doctors appointed on ad hoc basis, were
disposed of by this Gou.rt by order dated 9.4.1987 recording
the submission on behaif of the Union of India that the services
F of several of the ad hoc1appointees had been regularized and
the services of the rest will also be regularised. Referring to the
issue of seniority inter-se among them, this Court observed that
if the orders of regularization of appointment are made to take
effect from the respective dates of their initial appointment and
G seniority was consequently determined, the problem will be
solved. As there was no objection to such a course by the ad-
hoc doctors (appellants/petitioners therein), the said appeal and
writ petition were disposed of accordingly.
3. The Union of India experienced some difficulties in giving
H
DR. P. P. C. RAWANI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & 67
ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
effect to the directions of this Court as it found that if A
regularization was granted with effect from the date of their initial
appointment to all the ad-hoc appointees, several regularly
appointed doctors may be relegated to secondary position, in
view of the earlier appointment of ad hoc doctors. The
regularized doctors therefore filed applications before this Court B
for giving effect to the orders dated 9.4.1987. The regularly
appointed doctors also filed applications to ensure that their
interests were not jeopardized/prejudiced. They pointed out that
they were not parties to the cases decided on 9.4.1987. These
applications were considered and disposed of by this Court c
with the following directions by order dated 29.10.1991
[reported in Dr. PPG Rawani vs. Union of/ndia - 1992 (1) SCC
331]:
"(1) Each of the appellants will be treated as regularized
in Group A of the Central Health Service from January 1, D
1973 or the date of his first initial appointment in the
service (though as ad hoc Group B doctor), whichever is
later.
(2) In order to ensure that there is no disturbance of the E
seniority and the promotional prospects of the regularly
recruited doctors there will be a separate seniority list in
respect of the appellants and their promotions (about
which directions are given below) shall be regulated by
~.
such separate seniority list and such promotions will only
F
be in supernumerary posts to be created as mentioned
below.
(3) (a) Each of the appellants will be eligible for promotion
to the post of Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical
Officer or further promotional' posts therefrom taking into G
account his seniority in the separate seniority list which is
to be drawn up as indicated above.
(b) The promotion of any of the appellants to the. post
of Senior Medical Officer, Chief Medical Officer and further H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
A promotional post -therefrom will be on par with the
promotion of the regularly recruited doctor who is
immediately junior to the concerned appellant on the basis
of their respective dates of appointment. In other words, if
a regularly recruited doctor, on the basis of the seniority
8 list maintained by the department, gets a promotion as
Senior Medical ·officer or Chief Medical Officer or further ~
promotion thereafter, then the appellant who was appointed
immediately earlier to him will also be promoted as a
Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer or further
c promotion therefrom (as the case may be) with effect from
same date.
(4) In order that there may be no conflict or any possibilities
of reversion, the post to which an appellant will be
promoted (whether as Senior Medical Officer or Chief
D Medical Officer or dn further promotion therefrom) should .
only be to a supernumerary post. Such number of
supernumerary posts should be created by the government
as may be necessary to give effect to the above
directions. No promotion will be given to any of the
E appellants in the existing vacancies which will go only to
the regularly appointed doctors.
(5) The appellants hereby agree to give up all monetary
claims on account of revision of scales, regularization or
~
promotion to which·they would be entitled till October 31,
F
1991.
(6) Apart from the appellants there are certain doctors who
fall in the same category but who had not filed writ petitions
before the High Court. They have filed directly writ petitions
G before this Court bearing Nos.2620-2659 of 1985 and
intervention applications. The intervention applications are
allowed and rule nisi is issued in the writ petitions of which
the other parties take notice. These interveners and writ
petitioner have to be granted the same relief as the
H appellants. It is made clear that all these applicants and
DR. P. P. C. RAWANI & ORS. v. UNION OF INOIA & 69
ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.)
'i
petitioners will be entitled to the same reliefs as the A
appellants for all purposes of seniority and promotion. All
monetary claims on account of revision of scales,
regularization or promotion till October 31, 1991 are given
up by these applicants and petitioners as well."
B
> (emphasis supplied)
4. The regularized doctors filed Contempt Petition No.615/
2004 alleging non-compliance with the order dated 29.10.1991.
That petition was disposed of on 13.5.2005 recording the
submission that the order dated 29.10.1991 will be c
implemented in six weeks. The regularized doctors have again
filed a contempt petition (Contempt Petition No.169/2005). The
regularized doctors contend that whenever any regularly
appointed doctor is promoted to Senior Administrative Grade
-.; from the post of Chief Medical Officer - Non Functional D
. Selection Grade (for short 'CMO (NFSG)'], all regularized
doctors whose dates of appointment were earlier to that of such
promoted regularly appointed doctor, should also be promoted
to the post of Senior Administrative Grade, having regard to
directions contained in the order dated 29.10.1991. The E
regularised doctors contend that respondents have failed to
comply with the said directions and therefore committed
contempt.
~' 5. On the other hand the regularly appointed doctors have
F
filed a Contempt Petition No.160/2005 contending that having
regard to the directions in the judgment dated 29.10.1991, the
regularized doctors can only be promoted to supernumerary
posts and in the same ratio which is available to regularly
appointed doctors. They contend that if the directions issued
on 29.10.1991 are construed in the manner put forth by the G
regularized doctors, it will adversely affect their seniority and
promotional prospects which were specifically protected by
directions No.(2) and (4) issued on 29.10.1991. They contend
that any attempt by respondents (Union of India and its
H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
A authorities) to promote regularized doctors to substantive posts
.
would violate the directions of this Court contained in the order
dated 29.10.1991. They also seek a direction to restrain the
respondents from creating more than 12 supernumerary posts
at SAG level. The regularly appointed doctors have also filed
B an application for clarification (IA No.3/2005) seeking following
clarifications/ modifications of the order dated 29.10.1991:
(a) Insofar as promotion to the SAG level is concerned,
ratio of the said posts to total strength shall be maintained
at 3.8% in the case of regularized (ad hoc) doctors group,
c as is done in the case of regular doctors group.
(b) In determining the promotion of ad hoc doctors, the
date of actual appointment of the juniormost person in a
batch of regular doctors (where the UPSC has
D recommended their appointments on a single date) shall
be the point of reference for parity with ad hoc doctors.
(c) While promoting ad hoc doctors of supernumerary
SAG level posts, Union of India should ensure that no such
promotee ad hoc doctor officiates against a senior post
E
to the detriment of any doctor whose actual date of
appointment is prior to the date of appointment or deemed
appointment of such ad hoc doctor.
6. Therefore what falls for consideration is the true import
F of directions contained in Paras 3(a) and (b) of the order dated '""'
29.10.1991.
7. The genesis of the problem relates back to the order
dated 9.4.1987. Two things are evident from the said order.
G First is that this Court, in passing the said order, did not
adjudicate upon the rights or claims of the ad hoc appointees
J.
on merits. The matters were disposed merely recording the
submission of the respondents that all ad hoc appointees were
regularized or will be regularized. The second is that the
direction relating to the seniority of regularized doctors in that
H
DR. P. P. C. RAWANI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & 71
ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
order is not with reference to regularized doctors vis-a-vis A
regularly appointed doctors, but only inter-se among the ad hoc
doctors who were regularized. This is clear from the following
observations in the said order:
"Pursuant to the interim directions and suggestions made B
by us, the services of several of the petitioners have
already been regularized and we are assured that the
services of the rest will also be regularized. It is however
stated by the learned counsel for the Union of India that
there can be some problem regarding their seniority c
since some have been regularized earlier and some
later. The difficulty anticipated is capable of easy solution.
All orders of regularization made pendente lite are naturally
subject to our final orders. Those in respect of whom orders
of regularization have already been issued and the others
0
are all parties before us.
If the orders of regularization of appointment are made
to take effect from their respective dates of original
appointment and seniority so determined there will be no
other problem. Sri Venugopal, learned counsel assured us E
that none of the doctors has any objection to this course.
II may be so done. This order disposes of the appeal and
the writ petition."
[Emphasis supplied] F
8. The orders dated 9.4.1987 and 29.10.1991 make it
clear that this Court did not intend any regularized doctor to steal
a march over the regularly appointed doctors, either individually
or as a group. To ensure that the seniority and promotional
prospects of regularly recruited doctors were not affected, this G
court directed a separate seniority list in respect of the
regularized doctors and clarified that their promotions will only
be in supernumerary posts to be created. Supernumerary posts
are non-cadre permanent posts. They are created to
accommodate the lien of officers who are entitled to hold a lien H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
A against regular permanent posts. Being ex-cadre posts, no
. specific duties are attached to them and the officers concerned
usually perform duties in some vacant temporary or permanent
posts. (vide D.K. Reddyv. Union oflndia 1996 (10) SCC 177).
9. If all the ad hoc doctors were to be regularized with
8
effect from the date of their initial appointment, with seniority
also from the date of initial appointment, there will be no
difference between regular recruitment and regularization of ad
hoc appointments, thereby defeating the very purpose of
C . systematic regular recruitment through UPSC. Ad hoc or stop
gap appointees were not normally regularized and given
seniority from the date of initial appointment. They were usually
given regularization and seniority only after a certain period of
service, which used to vary from one year to ten years or even
more. When this Court.directed on 9.4.1987, that regularized
D doctors shall have seniority from the date of their initial
appointment, it was only a direction intended to regulate the
seniority interse the regularized doctors as this Court found that
among the ad. hoc appo.ntees, regularization was not being
effected in accordance with seniority and some who were
E subsequently appointJd were being regularized earlier and
some who earlier appointed were being regularized later. It was
not intended to affect the seniority of regularly appointed
doctors. The regularized doctors cannot occupy the posts
meant for regular doetors, either at entry level or at higher
F promotional levels.
10. When the clarificatory order dated 29.10.1991 was
passed, this Court took care to direet that promotions of
regularized doctors will only be in supernumerary posts. This
Court also directed that promotion of any regularized doctor will
G be on par with the promotion of the regularly recruited doctor
who is immediately junior to the regularized doctor. This meant
that if one regularly,appointed doctor was promoted, one
regularized doctor (that is, the senior most from those
regularized doctors whose date of initial appointment was
H
DR. P. P. C. RAWANI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & 73
ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
~
earlier to that of, said promoted regularly appointed doctor) was A
to be promoted by creating a supernumerary post. The above
is also clear from the wording of Para 3(b) of the directions
dated 29.10.1991 which uses the term 'on par' and uses
singular and not plural, when referring to the regularized doctor
to be promoted. The clarificatory order dated 29.10.1991 did B
not mean that if one regularly appointed doctor was promoted,
all regularized doctors appointed earlier to his appointment,
should be promoted to a higher post by creating that many
number of supernumerary posts. Such an interpretation will lead
to absurd results and give undue advantage in promotions to c
regularized doctors who are outside the cadre. To clarify the
interpretation, we give below an.. illustration .
Illustration : On 1.1.2008, there are 50 regularly appointed
Chief Medical Officers and 25 regularized Chief Medical
Officers. One regularly appointed CMO whose date of D
appointment is 1.1.1990 is promoted to Senior
Administrative Grade. Out of the 25 regularised CMOs, 10
were appointed prior to 1.1.1990. The clarificatory
directions dated 29.10.1991 does not require all 10
regularised CMOs appointed prior to 1.1.1990 to be E
promoted to Senior Administrative Grade by creating ten
supernumerary posts. All that it requires is that when one
regularly appointed doctor holding the post of CMO
(appointed on 1.1.1990) is promoted, one regularized
\
doctor holding the supernumerary post of CMO (who is F
senior-most from among the regularized doctors who were
appointed prior to 1.1.1990) will have to be promoted to
a supernumerary post of Senior Administrative Grade .
. 11. Having regard to the different interpretations put forth
G
by the regular doctors and regularized doctors, it cannot be
said that the respondents (Union Government and its officials)
disobeyed the orders of this Court by their action or inaction.
The rival claims led to a state of confusion. We have therefore
given the clarification as above to put an end to the long
H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R
A pending controversy.
12. It is made clear that what is stated above is only an
interpretation of the orders dated 9.4.1987 and 29.10.1991.
Neither the order dated 9.4.1987 no; the clarificatory order
8 dated 29.10.1991 lays down any principle of law in regard to
either regularization or inter se seniority between regular
appointees and regularized appointees. The order dated
29.10.1991 merely attempted to give finality to an issue which
had arisen in the context of the order dated 9.4.1987 which was
C in the nature of a consent order. In fact, referring to the order
dated 29.10.1991, this court stated thus in M.A. Haque v. Union
of India [1993 (2) sec 213] : ·
"In fact this Court has, of late, been witnessing a constant
violation of the recruitment rules and a scant respect for
D the constitutional provisions requiring recruitment to the
services through the Public Service Commission. It
appears that since this Court has in some cases permitted ·
regularization of the irregularly recruited employees, some
Governments and authorities have been increasingly
E resorting to irregular recruitments. The result has been that
the recruitment rules and the Public Service Commissions
have been kept in cold storage and candidates dictated
by various considerations are being recruited as a matter
of course. What is further, in the present case, some of
F those like the petitioner-applicants who were initially .
recruited on ad hoc basis, have exerted themselves and
taken pains to appear for the tests before the UPSC and
have enrolled themselves through regular channel unlike in
Dr. Rawani case. We have thus on hand three classes of
employees as pointed out earlier, viz., the outside direct
G
recruits, the in-service direct recruits and the ad hoc
employees like the petitioner-applicants who were
regularized through the Court's order. Further, Dr. Rawani
case as has been pointed out on behalf of the
respondents, pertains to the Central Government Health
H
DR. P. P. C. RAWANI & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & 75
ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
Services which has a target component both at the initial A
and promotional stages. The course adopted by this Court
to direct creation of supernumerary promotional posts at
every higher promotional stage there, may not be feasible
in the medical service in the Railways. The creation of
supernumerary posts has its own limitations, both physical B
and financial. The burden of additional posts even when
they are not necessary and cannot be accommodated, is
not easy to carry. We are, therefore, of the view that the
directions given in Dr. Rawani case has to be confined
to the special facts of that case and cannot be extended c
to other cases. In any case, this Court should not give any
such direction to the Railways. If, however, the Railways
decide to follow that course, they can do so and nothing
prevents them from doing it. We would rather refrain from
creating a precedent by giving such directions". 0
(emphasis supplied]
Whatever we have stated above will apply only to the
controversy that has arisen in regard to the interpretation of the
order dated 29.10.1991. It is made clear that neither the E
directions in the order dated 29.10.1991 (reported in 1992 (1)
sec 331) nor the clarification of those directions by this order,
shall be construed as an enunciation of any general principle
nor be applied as a precedent in any other case relating to any
dispute between regularly appointed employees and F
regularized employees.
13. With the above observations and clarifications, and a
direction that the respondents shall give effect to the order dated
29.10.1991, as clarified above, the contempt petitions and
applications for clarification/modification are disposed of. G
S.K.S. Contempt Petition and applications
for modification are disposed of..
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority"Sign in to search