P P C RAWANI HARBANS SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by certain doctors of the central Health service for clarification of the earlier orders passed by this court in C. A. No. 3519 of 1984. Actually, the appellants' grievance is that even though the appeal was disposed of by the order of this court dated April 9, 1987 and the directions given therein have been reiterated in the subsequentorders of this court, the Union of India has not given proper effect to the directions given by this court.

(2.) Briefly, the appellants were originally appointed after interview by selection committees but only as ad hoc appointees in the above service. They were appointed on various dates between 1968 and 1977. Their grievance is that despite their long service in the department they were not regularised with reference to their original dates of appointment. The Union of India pointed out certain difficulties in giving effect to the order of this court of April 1987 by filing a review petition and then a clarification application but these have been dismissed. The resultant position is that all the appellants have to be regularised in Group A of the central Health Service w. e. f. 1/01/1973 or the date of their respective original appointments whichever is later. We may mention here that this date 1/01/1973 is mentioned here because the appellants have now expressed their willingness to be considered for regular appointment only from this date and not from any earlier date, this being the date on which the Group B and Group A services were merged together by the government of India on the recommendations of the third Pay Commission. The only difficulty experienced by the Union of india in giving effect to the directions of this court which now subsists is that if regularisation is granted to all the appellants, doctors who have been regularly appointed in Group A after an interview by the Union public Service Commission may get relegated to secondary positions in view of the fact that the appellants were appointed much earlier though on an ad hoc basis. These regularly recruited doctors had not been heard earlier and they have now come up with intervention applications praying that any order of regularisation of the appellants should ensure that their interests are not prejudiced. This was also the anxiety of the Union of India as expressed in the counter-affidavit filed in this court.

(3.) After hearing all the counsel, we were inclined to think that while the appellants should get their rights which were declared by this court in its earlier orders, there should at the same time be no prejudice to the doctors appointed through regular recruitment by the Union Public Service Commission. After some discussion, counsel for the appellants agreed to put forward certain proposals which would safeguard their interests and also at the same time not prejudice the regular appointees through the Union public service commission. The essence of the proposal made by them is that they may be treated to be a separate category with their own seniority list and entitled to promotion in accordance with that seniority list, the problem of conflict with the direct regular recruits being avoided by creation of an appropriate number of supernumerary posts. The Union of India is not agreeable to acceptthese proposals which were set down by the appellants at our instance, in the form of an affidavit. The proposals of the appellants have been set down in an Annx. to an affidavit filed by Dr P. P. C. Rawani and dated 16/07/1991. However, after considering the matter we are of the opinion that there is no way of rendering justice to all the parties before us except by accepting these proposals in the manner to be set down below particularly because we find that while making the proposals, the appellants have also to some extent expressed the willingness to forego certain rights that might have accrued to them in consequence of the earlier orders passed by this court. We are of the opinion that the proposals made are reasonable in the circumstances of the cases and that they do not also in any way prejudice the rights of the regularly recruited doctors.