Holding

Supernumerary posts are not distinct from regular posts for the purpose of administrative powers; regularised doctors occupying supernumerary posts are entitled to such powers.

Summary

The appellants, originally appointed as ad hoc Group 'B' doctors under the Central Health Service Rules, 1963, were later regularised as Group 'A' doctors by the Supreme Court, with the direction that their promotions would be to supernumerary posts only. Directly recruited doctors (respondents) contended that only they should be vested with administrative powers, arguing that supernumerary posts are distinct from regular posts and lack such powers. The Central Administrative Tribunal accepted the respondents' view, holding that supernumerary posts do not carry administrative authority. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's distinction between supernumerary and regular posts was untenable and that regularised doctors in supernumerary posts are entitled to the same administrative powers as regular posts. The Court relied on its earlier decision in D.K. Reddy v. Union of India, emphasizing that supernumerary posts cannot be treated as outside the sanctioned strength. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether doctors appointed to supernumerary posts are entitled to administrative powers.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in treating supernumerary posts as distinct from regular posts for the purpose of administrative authority.
Whether the Supreme Court's directions on regularisation and promotion to supernumerary posts are consistent with the law.

Subjects

service lawcentral health service rulessupernumerary postadministrative powersregularisationpromotioncentral administrative tribunalsenioritygroup Agroup B

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A
v.
DR. AKHILESH CHANDRA AGRA WAL

FEBRUARY 27, 1998
B
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.]

Service Law :

Central Health Service Rules, 1982: c
Supernumerary-Post-Administrative powers-Conferment a/-
Administrative Tribunal held that supernumerary post was different from
·regular post and did not carry with it administrative powers-Held: This
view of the Tribunal cannot be sustained-Hence rejected-Central Health
Service Rules, 1963. D

The appellants were originally appointed as ad hoc group 'B' Doctors
under the Central Health Service Rules, 1963. After the first year of service
the appellants continued in service in consultation with the Union Public
Service Commission. After the Central Health Service Rules, 1982 came E
into. force the posts were classified as Medical Officers, Senior Medical
Officers and Chief Medical Officers. All these Medical Officers were brought
under on Group, namely, Group 'A'. Group 'B' was totally abolished. In spite
of the appellants making repeated representations for regularisation, the
appellants could not get any response from the authorities.
F
The appellants, therefore, filed a writ petition before the High Court
for regularisation which was dismissed. However, this Court granted leave
and directed that the appellants would be treated as regularised in G_roup 'A'
of the Central Health Service. This Court further directed that the appellants
would be promoted only to supernumerary posts.
G
The respondents (directly recruited doctors) filed a petition before the
Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that they alone should be given
administrative powers. The Tribunal allowed the petition and held that the
supernumerary post was different from regular posts and did not carry with
it the administrative powers. Hence this appeal. H
I 139
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] I S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : l. The view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal that
those appointed in the supernumerary posts cannot claim the administrative
powers as that will only go with the regular posts is wrong. The Tribunal's
view treating supermerary posts as different from the regular posts cannot
B be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in conceding the claim
of the respondents (directly recruited doctors) that they alone should be
given the administrative powers. (1145-A)

D.K. Reddy v. Union of India, JT (1995) 4 SC 432, relied on.

C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14747 of
1996 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.96 of the Central Adminstrative
Tribunal, Allahabad in 0.A. No. 1744of1993.

D N.N. Goswami, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Ashok K. Srivastava, D.S. Mehra,
K.V. Viswanathan, K.V. Venkataraman, Shakil Ahmed Syed, R.S. Massey Verma
and K.B. Hina for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E VEN KAT ASWAMI, J. These two appeals by special leave arise out of
one order of the Central; Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated
23. I .96 made in O.A. No. 1744of1993.

Civil Appeal No. 1477/96 was preferred by the Union of India and Civil
F Appeal No. 14573/96 was filed by the aggrieved individuals against one and
same order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The subject-matter of dispute before the Tribunal related to a letter
dated 17.10.93 issued by the Deputy Director Admn. (CGHS), New Delhi, to
the Deputy Director, CGHS, Kanpur. The letter impugned before the Tribunal
G reads as follows :-

"No. A-32018/4/93/CHS. II

Directorate General of Health Services

New Delhi, dated the 12.10.93, 17.10.93
H
l
U.0.1. v. DR.A.C.AGRAWAL [K. VENKATASWAMl,J.] 1141

To A
The Deputy Director,
CGHS, 117/6 l 7, Pandu Nagar,
Kanpur.

Sub: CGHS, Kanpur-Clarification regarding fixation of seniority of B
-<- Chief Medical Officers-Reg.

Sir,

I am directing to refer to your letter No. 2-3/90-CGHS/KNP/1876, C
dated the 27th August, 1993 on the subject mentioned above and to
say that the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, to whom the case
was referred, have clarified that for the pmpose of inter-se-comparison
between initially regularly appointed doctors and beneficiaries in tem1s
of Dr. Rawan.i 's, case judgment, precedence will be given to those D
r who have an earlier date/deemed date of regular appointment. The
actual date of issue of orders of organisation is not relevant in these
cases.

Yours faithfully,

(Lala Rani)
E

Deputy Director Admn. (CGHS)

Copy to:-

Additional Director, CGHS.'' F

Shortly put the facts leading to the filing of O.A. No. 1744/93 before the
Tribunal are the following :-

The first appellant and the members of the second appellant were all
originally appointed as ad hoc Group 'B' Doctors under the Central Health G
Services Rules, 1963 between the years 1968 to 1977. After the first year of
....
service those doctors continued in service in consultation with the Union
Public Service Commission. In the year 1982 the Central Health Service Rules,
1982 came into force and under those Rules the posts were classified as
Medical Officers, Senior Medical Officers and Chief Medical Officers. All H
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A these Medical Officers were brought under one Group, namely, Group 'A'.
Group 'B' was totally abolished. ln spite of the appellants making repeated
representations for regularisation, they could not get any response from the
authorities, which made them to move the Delhi High Court in W.P. No. 1144/
83 for regularisation. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. However,
this Court granted leave and the appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No.
B 3519/84. At the instance of Union of India, this Court by an order dated
14.7.86 gave liberty to the Government of India to request the Union Public
Service Commission to conduct a special selection under Rule 8(2) of the 1982
Rules for selection/regularisation of the appellants only from their original
dates of appointments. Some of the appellants, who were appointed by the
C Union Public Service Commission on a regular basis as fresh entrants, moved
this Court in Writ Petition No. 1228/86 seeking direction from this Court that
their services rendered on ad hoc basis to be counted . This Court on 9.4. 87
disposed of Civil Appeal No.3519/94 and Writ Petition No. 1228/86 holding
that orders for regularisation of appointments be issued and that it will take
effect from the respective dates of their original appointments. A Review
D Petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed by this Court on 15.9.87.
In spite of this Court's order, the Union of India did not give effect to the
orders of this Court, which made the appellants to move this Court in Contempt
Petition in CMP No. 8076/88. The Contempt Petition was ultimately disposed
of by this Court on 29.10.91 issuing certain directions, which read as
E follows:-"

"!. Each of the appellants wi11 be treated as regularised in Group 'A'
of tile Central Health Service From l.1.1973 or the date of his first
initial appointment in the service (though as ad hoc Group 'B' doctor),
whichever is later.
F 2. In order to ensure that there is no disturbance of the seniority and
the promotional prospects the regularly recruited doctors, there will
be 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
supernumerary posts to be created as mentioned.
G
3. (a) Each of the appellants wi11 be eligible for promotion to the post
of Senior Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer or further promotional "<
posts therefrom taking into account his seniority in the separate
seniority list which is to be drawn up as indicated above.

H (b) The promotion of any of the appellants to the post of Senior
(
- U.0.1. v. DR.A.C. AGRAWAL [K. VENKATASWAMI,J.) 1143

Medical Officer, Chief Medical Officer and further promotional post A
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 list maintained
by the Department, gets a promotion as Senior Medical Officer or B
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 Otlef Medical Officer or further promotion
therefrom (as the case may be) with effect from the same date.

4. In order that there may be no conflict or any possibilities of
reversion, the post of which appellant will be promoted (whether as
c
Senior Medical Officer or Cltlef Medical Officer or on 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 appellants in t11e existing vacancies which will go D
~·
only to the regularly appointed doctors.

5. The appellants hereby agree to give up all monetary claims on
account of revision of scales, regularisation or promotion to which
they would be entitled till 31.10.1991.
E
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 before tltls Court bearing
Nos. 2620-265911985 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 F
petitioners have to be gr..nted t11e same relief as t11e appellants. It is
made clear that all these applicants and petitioners will be entitled to
the same relief as t11e appellants for all purposes of seniority and
promotion. All monetary claims on account of revision of scales,
regularisation or promotion till 31.10.1991 are given up by these G
applicants and petitioners as well."

On the basis of the order of this Court, t11e Union oflndia issued orders
on 11.12.91 stating that Senior Medical Officer will be promoted as Chief
Medical Officer on completion of six years of regular service as Senior Medical
Officer or on completion of ten years of combined regular service as Medical H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A Officers and Senior Medical Officers of which at least two years would be as
Senior Medical Officers on the Basis of seniority-cum-fitness subject to their
securing Bench Mar of ·'good". On 18.12.92 the Union of India issued a
further order stating that since tl1e Officers on promotion were adjusted
against combined sanctioned strength, no supernumerary post was necessary.
In these circumstances, it appears that the Deputy Director, CGHS, Kanpur,
B sought a clarification from the Director General of Health Services on 27.8.93.
In reply to that, the letter impugned before the Tribunal came to be issued.

The Tribunal accepting tl1e contentions of the respondents herein
(directly recruited doctors) held that the impugned letter was in violation of
C the directions given by this Court and, therefore, the Safl\e was illegal and not
sustainable in law. The Tribunal was of the view that the fact that the
regularised doctors were to be accommodated in the supernumerary posts to
be created, will show that they will not carry witl1 them the administrative
powers. The Tribunal observed as follows :-

"The result, therefore, is that when a regular post of Chief Medical
D
Officer falls vacant, it shall go to the directly recruited medical officer.
Naturally, such post of Chief Medical Officers will carry the
administrative powers as well. Since, no prejudice is to be caused to
the regularised medical officer, he shall be posted as Chief Medical
Officer but only on super-numerary post. In our opinion, such super-
E numerary post which is different than the regular post, will not carry
with it the administrative powers."

This view of the Tribunal; according to the appellants, in C.A.No.
14573/96 is prejudicial to their interest and by reason of the order of Tribunal
they are to take orders from their juniors, which was not the spirit or intent
F of the order of this court. According to them, the letter impugned before the
Tribunal was quite in accordance with the directions given by this Court and
tlle constriction put on that letter by the Tribunal was wrong.

From tlle narration of tlle facts, it is evident tllat the appellants, who
G are to be considered as regularised doctors, have consistently succeeded
before this Court at every stage in establishing their seniority. As noticed
above, this Court while giving directions in unmistakable terms has stated
that the regularised doctors will take their seniority on and from l.1.73 or the
date of their first initial appointment in the service (though as ad hoc Group
'B' doctors), whichever is later. In view of this direction read with direction
H 2 and 3 (supra), which was arrived at after a prolonged discussion, the view
U.0.1. v. DR.A.C.AGRAWAL [K. VENKATASWAMl,J.] ll45

taken by the Tribunal that the impugned letter dated 17.10.93 was in violation A
,,J.... of the directions given by this Court is totally uncalled for. Likewise, the view
taken by the Tribunal that those appointed in the supernumerary posts
cannot claim the administrative powers as that will go only with regular posts
is also wrong. The Tribunal treated supernumerary posts as different one from
the regular posts. This view of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in view of
a decision of this Court in D.K. Reddy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., JT B
(1995) 4 SC 432. This Court while considering a similar question repelled an
argument similar to the view taken by the Tribunal by observing as follows:-

"As a result of such an exercise, if need arose appellant no. l could
be treated to have been holding supernumerary post in Junior Time C
Scale Grade of Group 'A' posts and in all othe1 promotional cadres.
He cannot be treated to be outside the sanctioned strength of Posts
in Junior Time Scale grade of Group 'A' or other promotional posts
as contended by learned counsel for respondents. Otherwise, the very
creation of supernumerary posts would become otiose and
meaningless." D
The two reasons given by the Tribunal to hold the impugned letter as
not sustainable in law, cannot be accepted as correct one. It is not in dispute
that there was no quarrel between the two groups regarding the seniority or
promotion. Both sides agreed that so far as promotion and seniority are
concerned, they are given in accordance with the directions of this Court, but E
only regarding the administrative responsibilities/powers the directly recruited
doctors calimed that they alone should be given such administrative powers
irrespective of the seniority which was accepted by the Tribnnal. We do not
think that the Tribunal was right in conceding the claim of the directly
recruited doctors on this aspect. F
In the result, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the letter
impugned before the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality. The appeal
are allowed. There will be not order as to costs.

V.S.S. Appeals allowed. G