- (1.) The petitioners in their Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenged the action of the respondents in terminating their services as 'ad hoc' Assistant Medical Officers on the plea that they were 'ad hoc' appointees and replacing them by freshly recruited Assistant Divisional Medical Officers, and prayed for the issue of a direction to the respondents to treat the appointments of the petitioners as regular with effect from the dates of their respective appoinmeiits as 'ad hoc' Assistant Medical Officers and to assign them consequent seniority in the grades.
(2.) It was contended by the petitioners that they were appointed as 'ad hoc' Assistant Medical Officers (Class II) during the period August 198 3/07/1986 in the South-Eastern, North-East Frontier and Northern Zones of the Indian Railways and had been officiating in the said grade for periods ranging up to four years. Although the initial appointments were for a period of six months, the respondents had extended their tenure from time to time. Instead of regularising the services of the petitioners and conferring the benefits of seniority, the respondents had threatened to terminate their services as and when the UPSC selected Assistant Divisional Medical Officers nd they joined the service. In the South-Central Zone of the Railways, the petitioners contended that the respondents had in factby an Order No. 450/86 dated 11/11/1986, terminated the services of eleven officiating 'ad hoc' Assistant Medical Officers as they had not availed of the three chances stated in their appointment order for selection through UPSC. It was alleged that neither the Indian Railways Medical Department (Assistant Medical Officers Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1977 nor the earlier Rules of 1967 provided for 'ad hoc' appointment of Assistant Medical Officers, and that the respondents exercised the powers' to relax the Rules conferred by Rule 8 of the 1967 Rules and Rule 6 of the 1977 Rules, as it was inevitable to prevent dislocation of medical services on the Railways and alleviation of hardship to the employees and their families.
(3.) These petitions were contested by the respondent. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it was contended that the petitioners belonged to the category of 'ad hoc' doctors who were appointed by the General Managers of the concerned Zonal Railways under their powers, and not by the President of India, purely as a temporary measure for a specified period, that such 'ad hoc' appointments became unavoidable in the Railways and were resorted to, to tide over temporary shortage of professional doctors and that these 'ad hoc' doctors' tenures were extended for various periods from time to time. It was further contended that the recruitment of regular doctors in the Railways was done in the capacity of Assistant Divisional Medical Officer (Group 'a') in the scale of Rs. 700-1,600 through the Union public service commission as the posts belonged to Group 'a' for which the appointing authority was the President of India. It was also submitted that the General Managers of the Zonal Railways were empowered to recruit 'ad hoc' doctors as Assistant Medical Officers Group 'b' in the scale of Rs. 650-1,200 purely on 'ad hoc' basis for a specified period to maintain the Railways Medical Service till replacement by Assistant Divisional Medical Officers selected through the UPSC.;