MADAN, J. - (1.) THESE six special appeals since have arisen out of common judgment dated 15. 9. 1995 of the learned Single Judge in three writ petitions having been filed by the doctors, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge while allowing the doctors' writ petition Nos. 446/94, 607/94, & 954/94 directed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "psc") to interview the writ petitioner also for the advertised posts without requiring them to go through the screening test.
(2.) THESE special appeals are divided in two sets. First three appeals (Nos. 777/95, 778/95 & 779/95) have been filed by the PSC for setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereas by second set of appeals (Nos. 679/95, 680/95 & 775/95) the doctors (who were petitioners in their aforesaid writ petitions) have sought for modification of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge by directing respondents (State of Rajasthan & PSC) to regularise the services of doctors (petitioners) on the post of Assistant Professors by assessing their service records/acrs, experience etc. as a separate block from the date of their initial appointments on adhoc basis with all consequential benefits. Relevant facts and circumstances in which these appeals have arisen are briefly stated. Admittedly it is the case on behalf of the writ petitioners (for short the doctors) as is evident from their appointment order that on recommendation of the Central Selection Committee, these doctors were appointed on urgent/temporary basis in accordance with proviso to Rule 30 (1) of Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (for short Rules, 1962) as Lecturer initially for a period upto 28. 2. 91 from the date they took over the charge of post at the respective places of their postings or till the regularly selected persons are made available by the RPSC whichever is earlier and their appointments were subject to terms and conditions laid down in the Rules, 1962 or orders issued by the Government from time to time. Similarly it is also not in dispute that these doctors continued in service after their initial appointments till they approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions out of which these appeals arise. The dispute arose when an advertisement came to be issued on 10. 12. 1993 by the State Govt. for filing up posts of Assistant Professors in various subjects for regular selection by direct recruitment without giving any preference or weightage to the existing temporary or adhoc doctors like the writ petitioners. However, admittedly they were not denied to apply for these posts under advertisement (supra ). Hence these adhoc/temporary doctors who were already in service challenged the advertisement, ibid, by way of aforesaid writ petitions beside claiming regularisation of their service on the basis of assessment of their performance, service record and experience etc. In nut shall, the crux of their grievance was that since they had already been working in service, they should be given benefit of their past services before making appointments on regular selection. Another limb of their grievance was that similar relief should also be granted as has been done in other writ petitions (Nos. 5424/90 & 5425/90) which were earlier filed by Dr. Rajendra Surekha & Dr. Sudhir Bhandari, challenging filling up of the posts of Asstt. Professor (General Medicine) on the ground that the in-service candidates should not be directed to face process of fresh recruitment and their services should be regularised. These petitions of Dr. Surekha and Dr. Bhandari, infact, were dismissed by judgment dt. 11. 4. 94 as regards claim of regularisation of their service as a result of their past performance as Assistant Professors. Though in the present petitions out of which these appeals arise, the reliefs were sought for:- (a) setting aside advertisement dt. 10. 12. 93 (Annex. 7) as it does not make any provision for giving preference to the in-service doctors on the basis of assessment of their APARs, seniority, research work, experience & service record; (b) to regularise services of the doctors petitioners by making assessment of their APARs, service records, experience as a separate block; (c) not to make any regular appointment for posts of Assistant Professor in various medical colleges & Associated grounds of Hospital in the State of Rajasthan without first regularising services of the in-service doctors (d) to assign seniority after regularising their services from the dates of their initial adhoc appointment with all consequential benefits, but after having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge laid much Atress upon placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in RPSC vs. Dr. Rajendra Surekha & Ors. (1), which upheld the judgment of the Single Bench (supra) as well as the Division Bench of this Court (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 533/1994 & 492/1994 decided on 8. 5. 95) by holding that the doctors (petitioners) are entitled for exemption from going through the screening test for the post of Assistant Professors, and it was made clear that the benefit of this exemption shall be extended to only those ad hoc in-service doctors who have put in three or more years of service as Assis- tant Professors. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge under the impug- ned judgment allowed three petitions of the doctors (petitioners) and the RPSC has been directed to interview these petitioners also for the advertised posts without requi- ring them to go through the screening test. Hence these special appeals have been preferred, first three ones by the PSC and rest of three by the doctors (petitioners ). During the course of arguments, Sarva Shri A. K. Sharma and Rajendra Soni learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners (for short the doctors) in special appeals though reiterated whatever they have urged in writ petitions but vociferously contended that since the doctors were initially selected by the Central Selection Committee under Rule 30 (1) of the Rules, 1962 in the year 1990-91 and onwards against vacant posts and by virtue thereof they have been continuing in service, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge did also permit the doctors for interview before the PSC but since the learned Single Judge did not issue orders for giving seniority to the doctors from the date of their initial appointment as has been given to Dr. Sudhir Bhandari & Dr. Surekha, their only grievance in their special appeals is confined for seeking modification of the impugned judgment dated 15. 9. 95 for giving them seniority from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits. To substantiate their contentions, learned counsel for the doctors placed reliance upon the decisions in Rudra Kumar Sain vs. Union of India (2), Jai Narain Ram vs. State of UP (3), Rakesh Kumar Singh vs. State or Harayana (4), OP Singla vs. Union of India (5), Shanti Prakash vs. HSEB (6), Narendra Chadda vs. Union of India (7), Gujarat State Dy Xen vs. State of Gujarat The decisions of this Court have also been cited but since they being based on decisions of the Apex Court, their reference will merely be reiteration thereof.
(3.) CONTRARILY, Sarva Shri R. P. Singh & V. S. Yadav and S. N. Kumawat, learned Advocates appearing for the State Government and the PSC respectively vehemently urged that though the doctors were selected u/rule 30 (1) of the Rules, 1962 by the Central Selection Committee but this Rule 30 (1) does not provide for regular selection and only for urgent temporary appointment on the vacancy in the service which cannot be filled in immediately either by direct recruitment, and in this view of the matter such appointments under Rule 30 (1) are merely adhoc temporary one till regularly selected candidates are made available by RPSC and that apart such adhoc temporary appointees cannot be regularised dehors the Rules, 1962 inasmuch as for regularisation candidates must be regularly selected by PSC as per the Rules, 1962. The learned counsel for the PSC also contended that in regular selection which is being open market competition under the service Rules no candidates can be given steal marks over other candidates merely on the basis of experience during their adhoc temporary appointments. He cited the decisions in Kanwar Singh vs. State of Harayana Shri Kumawat has also contended that since the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned judgment exempting the doctors from appearing for screening tests, entirely on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court dt. 5. 6. 1995 delivered in Dr. Bhandari and Dr. Surekha's cases (supra), but curiously enough this judgment of Apex Court is not applicable to the case of present doctors being based on different set of circumstances of that case only and the doctors are liable to first face the screening test and after having been successful therein they can be eligible for interview, inasmuch as the PSC for such doctors is entitled to conduct screening test as has been held in RPSC vs. Dayamanti (10), MPSC vs. Navneet (11), & J. K. PSC vs. Dr. Narendra (12), because pegging the recruitment in chain system would deprive all the eligible candidates as on the date of inviting applications offending Articles 14 & 16. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and carefully perused the material on record, in our considered view, it is an admitted position that the learned Single Judge has based the impugned judgment entirely on the decisions of not only the Single Bench affirmed with slight modification by the Division Bench but clarified by the Apex Court in Dr. Bhandari & Dr. Surekha's case (supra), as is evident from the following observations which are being quoted from the impugned judgment:- "having considered the submissions and after going through the judgments of the Division Bench and final order of the Supreme Court dated June 5, 1995, I find no substance in the argument of Shri Parihar as all the learned Judges have concurrently exempted the ad hoc appointees from going through the screening test and have directed the RPSC to interview the adhoc appointees without directing them to go through the screening test. Besides this, in my view, no distinction can be made on the ground that the order applies only to the Assistant Professor in General Medicine for the reason that the benefit could not be extended only to one discipline to the exclusion of the candidates of other disciplines when they are similarly situated; the only difference being regarding the subject. " ;