Union Of India Ors vs Harish Bhikrishna Mahajan
- Neutral1996 INSC 1210
- SCR[1996] Supp (7) SCR 662
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a temporary appointee seeks regularisation in a post that is required by statute to be filled through recruitment by the Public Service Commission, the court cannot direct regularisation in consultation with the Public Service Commission, as this would violate Article 320 of the Constitution; instead, the proper course is to require the Union to notify the recruitment to the Public Service Commission, which must conduct examination and selection according to statutory rules, and the appointee must apply and compete like all other eligible candidates. Where recruitment to a post is prescribed to be made in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Public Service Commission under statutory rules framed under Article 320 of the Constitution, recruitment must be made in that manner and in no other manner, and directions for regularisation cannot by-pass this procedure. Where a temporary appointee has been barred from competing in Public Service Commission recruitment by reason of age, the Union may consider relaxation of the age limit to the extent of the period of temporary service rendered.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The respondent was temporarily appointed as a Medical Officer on monthly basis in the Central Government Health Scheme on August 10,1982. During the unfortunate strike of the doctors as trade unionists, unmindful of the ethical and medical code of conduct, he was appointed and even continued in the service till August, 1987 When his services were terminated, he had gone to the Tribunal and filed OA No. 701/89. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated 21.12.1994 directed the appellants to regularise the service of the respondent in consultation with the Public Service Commision. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
The controversy is no longer longer res integra. In similar circumstances, this Court had considered the entire controversy in J & K Public Service Commission & Ors. vs Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors. [ (1994) 2 SCC 630]. Abmittedly, the post of doctors in the Central Government Health Scheme are required to be filled up by recruitment through Union Public Service Commission. Therefore, the direction to consider the case of the respondent in consultation with the Public Service Commission for regularisation is in violation of the statutory rules and Article 320 of the Constitution of India. The only course Known to law is that the Union of India shall be required to notify the recruitment to the Public Service Commission and Union Public Service commission shall conduct the examination inviting the applications from all the eligible persons including the persons like the respondents, It would be for the respondent to apply for and seek selection in accordance with Rules. Therefore, the direction is in violation of Article of Article 320 of the Constitution.
The learned counsel for the respondent seeks to place reliance on the directions issued by this Court in Jacob M. Puthuparambil vs. Kerala Water Authority [(1987) Supp, SCC 497]. It is seen that the Public Service Commission was required to recruit the candidates and, therefore, the additional Medical Officers wording in the Railway Department in the latter case were directed to be regularised in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, It would be seen that when the recruitment was to be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Public Service Commission in terms of the statutory Rules made under Article 320 of the Constitution, necessarily the recruitment is required to be made in that manner and in no other manner. Therefore, this Court did not intend to by-pass the above procedure in regularisation of their services. This Court, in similar circumstances, considered the same question in Union of India & Ors, vs. Dr Arun Kumar Sharma [CA No, 4876/94].
In that view, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal stands set aside, It would be open to the respondent to apply for selection. In case he is barred by age, it is needless to mention that the Union of India would consider necessary relaxation of the age to the extent of the period of service he has rendered on temporary basis, No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free