Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NOS.     8414-8415                     OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31023-31024 of 2011)

VIRESHWAR SINGH & ORS.              ...    APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF  DELHI & ORS.               ...  RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  appellants  are  General  Duty  Medical  Officers  

(GDMO)  Grade-II  who  were  appointed  on  ad  hoc basis  

between 1986 and 1989.  They are aggrieved by the denial  

of their claim to regularization with effect from the dates of  

their initial appointments.  Regularization granted from the  

1

Page 2

date  of  the  recommendations  of  the  Union  Public  Service  

commission  (for  short  ‘UPSC’),  namely,  24.07.1998  as  

approved  by  the  High  Court  of  Delhi  by  means  of  the  

impugned  order  dated  05.07.2011  has  been  called  into  

question in the present appeal.

3. The relevant facts are as follows.

The post of GDMO Grade-II is a Group ‘A’ post governed  

by  the  Delhi  Municipal  Corporation  Health  Service  

Recruitment  Regulations,  1982  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  

‘the Regulations’).  Under the said Regulations appointment  

in the post of GDMO Grade-II is required to be made through  

the UPSC.  Between 1982 and 1986 (for convenience may be  

referred to as the Phase-I) 82 GDMOs were appointed on ad  

hoc basis  for  an  initial  term  of  six  months  which  was  

subsequently extended from time to time.  In what may be  

again  conveniently  referred  to  as  the  Phase-II,  between  

1986-1989, another 69 number of GDMOs were appointed on  

ad hoc  basis on terms similar to the appointments made in  

Phase-I.   Both sets of appointments were not through the  

2

Page 3

UPSC but were made on the basis of a selection held by a  

Specially Constituted Selection Committee.   

4. The cases of the GDMOs appointed on ad hoc basis in  

Phase-I were referred to the UPSC for its recommendations  

for  the purpose of  regularization.   The UPSC approved 63  

cases  while  holding  10  candidates  to  be  unfit  for  

regularization.   The  recommendations  of  the  UPSC  were  

communicated  to  the  Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi  on  

27.06.1991.   Accordingly,  by  order  dated  17.08.1992  the  

Municipal  Corporation  regularized  the  services  of  the  63  

GDMOs recommended by the UPSC with effect from the date  

of  recommendation  i.e.  27.06.1991.   Aggrieved  by  their  

regularization  with  effect  from  the  date  of  the  

recommendation of the UPSC, the GDMOs appointed in the  

Phase-I  approached  this  Court  under  Article  32  of  the  

Constitution claiming regularization from the date of  their  

initial appointments.

5. While  the  aforesaid  writ  petition  was  pending,  the  

Municipal Corporation of Delhi sent the cases of the GDMOs  

3

Page 4

appointed in Phase-II to the UPSC for its recommendations  

for regularization of the incumbents.  The UPSC refused to  

consider any of the cases on the ground that the 10 GDMOs  

appointed in Phase-I, who were found by it to be unfit, had  

not been dismissed from service.  This had led the GDMOs  

appointed in Phase-II to file a writ petition (Writ Petition (C)  

No. 1550/1996) before the Delhi High Court.

6. The writ petition filed by the Phase-I GDMOs before this  

Court under Article 32 was decided on 8.5.1998 holding that  

their  regularization  with  effect  from  the  date  of  

recommendation  of  the  UPSC  was  validly  made and  they  

were not entitled to such regularization from the dates of  

their  initial  appointments.   The  judgment  of  this  Court  is  

reported as Dr. Anuradha Bodi and Others Vs. Municipal  

Corporation of Delhi And Others1 and will be specifically  

referred to at a later stage of the present order.

7. Six days after the judgment was rendered by this Court  

in  Dr.  Anuradha  Bodi (supra)  the  Delhi  High  Court  on  

14.05.1998 allowed the writ  petition (Writ  Petition (C)  No.  1 (1998) 5 SCC 293

4

Page 5

1550/1996) filed by Phase-II GDMOs by directing the UPSC to  

consider their cases for regularization from the dates of their  

initial appointments.  In compliance of the aforesaid order of  

the Delhi High Court, the UPSC recommended regularization  

of  the  said  GDMOs  from  the  dates  of  their  initial  

appointments by its communication dated 24.07.1998.   

8. There  being  an  apparent  conflict  with  regard  to  

regularization of the GDMOs appointed in Phase-I and Phase-

II, though made in identical circumstances and on the same  

terms, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi by its Resolution  

dated 17.01.2000 decided to regularize the services of both  

sets  of  GDMOs  with  effect  from  the  date  of  their  initial  

appointments.   On the basis  of  the said  Resolution dated  

17.01.2000 a formal Order dated 16.08.2000 was passed to  

the said effect.    

9. The Resolution dated 17.01.2000 and the formal Order  

dated 16.08.2000 came to be challenged by the regularly  

appointed  GDMOs before  the  Delhi  High  Court.   The  writ  

petition filed was, however, withdrawn and instead the order  

5

Page 6

dated 14.05.1998 passed by the  Delhi  High Court  in  Writ  

Petition  (C)  No.  1550/1996,  which  has  led  to  the  alleged  

Resolution  dated  17.01.2000  and  the  formal  Order  dated  

16.08.2000, were challenged in a Letters Patent Appeal by  

the regularly appointed GDMOs.  It is at this stage that the  

Municipal  Corporation of Delhi  issued another Order dated  

15.06.2007  and  a  Corrigendum  dated  18.06.2007  to  the  

effect that the regularization of both sets of GDMOs would be  

effective  from  the  date(s)  of  communication  of  the  

recommendation  of  the  UPSC.   The  said  action  of  the  

Municipal Corporation was challenged in a writ petition (Writ  

Petition (C) No. 4619/2007) before the Delhi High Court by  

the present appellants.   

10. The  Letter  Patent  Appeals  (LPA  Nos.  708/2001  and  

138/2003) filed by the regularly appointed GDMOs against  

the order dated 14.05.1998 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.  

1550/1996 were disposed of  by the Division Bench of  the  

High  Court  on  05.02.2008  by  holding  that  the  challenge  

made  in  the  appeals  stood  answered  by  the  subsequent  

order  of  the  Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi  dated  

6

Page 7

15.06.2007.  The Division Bench also took note of the fact  

that the said order dated 15.06.2007 was under challenge in  

Writ Petition (C) No. 4619/2007 and directed that the views  

expressed in the order dated 14.05.1998 in Writ Petition (C)  

No.  1550/1996  would have no relevance or  bearing  while  

deciding Writ Petition (C) No. 4619/2007.

11. Writ  Petition  (C)  No.  4619/2007  was  thereafter  

transferred  to  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  and  

numbered as T.A. No. 398/2009.  By order dated 09.12.2010  

the  learned Tribunal  decided the  aforesaid  case  (T.A.  No.  

398/2009)  alongwith  a  connected matter  holding  that  the  

Resolution dated 17.01.2000 with regard to regularization of  

GDMOs appointed  in  both  phases  from the dates  of  their  

initial  appointments  was  contrary  to  the  decision  of  this  

Court in Dr. Anuradha Bodi (supra).  Accordingly, while the  

Resolution dated 17.01.2000 was quashed, the subsequent  

Order of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi dated 15.06.2007  

was upheld.  The aforesaid order has been confirmed by the  

Division Bench of the High Court by means of the impugned  

order  dated  05.07.2011.   It  is  the  said  order  dated  

7

Page 8

05.07.2011 as well as the order dated 05.09.2011 refusing  

to  review  the  order  dated  05.07.2011  that  have  been  

challenged in the present appeals.

12.  We have heard learned counsels for the parties.

13. An elaborate recital of the facts had been considered  

necessary to trace out the core issue in the case.  Both sets  

of GDMOs i.e. in Phase-I and Phase-II were not appointed on  

the basis of a selection held by the UPSC as mandated by  

the  Regulations  in  force.   Their  appointments  were  

recommended  by  a  Specially  Constituted  Selection  

Committee.  Their appointments were  ad hoc; initially for a  

period of six months which was subsequently extended from  

time to time.  Being similarly circumstanced, undoubtedly,  

both  sets  of  GDMOs  will  have  to  be  treated  equally  and  

evenly for the purpose of regularization.  In  Dr. Anuradha  

Bodi (supra)  after  noticing   the  precise  terms  of  

appointment of the Phase-I GDMOs, the entitlement of the  

said GDMOs (Phase-I) to regularization with effect from the  

date  of  their  initial  appointments  was  considered  by  this  

8

Page 9

Court in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in  

Direct  Recruit  Class  II  Engineering  Officers’   

Association   Vs.  State  of  Maharashtra  and  Others2,  

particularly, in the backdrop of the two propositions (A) and  

(B) set out in paragraph 47 of the Report.   A subsequent  

judgment of a three Judges Bench in State of West Bengal  

and Others  Vs. Aghore Nath Dey and Others3 throwing  

further light and clarity on the contents of propositions (A)  

and (B) laid down in  Direct Recruit Class II   (supra) had  

also  been  considered  to  come to  the  conclusion  that  the  

cases of doctors appointed on  ad hoc basis in Phase-I fall  

within  the  corollary  to  conclusion  (A)  of Direct  Recruit  

(supra) and therefore they are not entitled to the benefit of  

service  rendered  on  ad  hoc  basis.   Paragraph  12  of  the  

report in  Dr. Anuradha Bodi (supra) may be conveniently  

noticed at this stage.

“12. If the facts of these two cases are analysed in   the light of the aforesaid decisions, there can be  no doubt whatever that the petitioners fall within   the  corollary  in  Conclusion  (A).  The  orders  of   appointment  issued  to  the  petitioners  are  very   

2 (1990) 2 SCC 715 3 (1993) 3 SCC 371

9

Page 10

specific  in  their  terms.  Though  the  recruitment   rules  came  into  force  on  6-8-1982,  the  appointments  were  not  made  in  accordance  therewith.  They  were  ad  hoc  and  made  as  a   stopgap  arrangement.  The  orders  themselves   indicated  that  for  the  purpose  of  regular   appointment the petitioners were bound to pass   the UPSC examination in the normal course in the  direct competition. Hence the petitioners will not   fall  under  the  main  part  of  Conclusion  (A)  or   Conclusion  (B)  as  contended  by  the  learned  counsel for the petitioners.”

14. If  the  GDMOs  appointed  in  Phase-II  are  similarly  

circumstanced as Dr. Anuradha Bodi and others, we fail to  

see how their  claim to regularization with effect  from the  

date  of  their  initial  appointments  can  be  countenanced  

except perhaps if we take a view contrary to that has been  

recorded in Dr. Anuradha Bodi (supra).

15. Learned  counsel  for  the appellants  has  tried  to  

persuade  us  to  charter  the  aforesaid  course  by  placing  

reliance on two decisions of this Court in Narender Chadha  

and Others  Vs. Union of India and Others4 and Keshav  

Chandra  Joshi  and  Others Vs.  Union  of  India  and  

4 (1986) 2 SCC 157

10

Page 11

Others5   It is contended that the denial of benefit of long  

years of  ad hoc service, in view of the ratio of the law laid  

down in the aforesaid two decisions, would be contrary to  

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.   

16.  It is the view expressed in Narender Chadha (supra)  

which would require a close look as Keshav Chandra Joshi  

(supra) is a mere reiteration of the said view.  In Narender  

Chadha (supra) the lis between the parties was one relating  

to counting of ad hoc service rendered by the promotees for  

the  purpose  of  computation  of  seniority  qua  the  direct  

recruits.  The basis of the decision to count long years of ad  

hoc service for the purpose of seniority is to be found more  

in the peculiar facts of the case as noted in para 20 of the  

report than on any principle of law of general application.  

However,  in  paragraphs  15-19  of  the  report  a  deemed  

relaxation of the Rules of appointment and the wide sweep  

of  the  power  to  relax  the  provisions  of  the  Rules,  as  it  

existed at the relevant point of time, appears to be the basis  

5 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272

11

Page 12

for  counting  of  the  ad  hoc service  for  the  purpose  of  

seniority.

17. The principle laid down in  Narender Chadha (supra)  

was approved by the Constitution Bench in  Direct Recruit  

Class II  (supra) as the promotion of the officers on ad hoc  

basis was found to be “without following the procedure laid  

down under the Rules.”  That apart, what was approved in  

the  Direct  Recruit  Class  II   (supra)  is  in  the  following  

terms.

“We, therefore, confirm the principle of counting   towards  seniority  the  period  of  continuous   officiation  following  an  appointment  made  in   accordance with the rules prescribed for  regular  substantive  appointments  in  the  service.”  {Para  13}

18. In  State of  West  Bengal and Others  Vs.  Aghore  

Nath Dey and Others (supra) a three Judges Bench of this  

Court has held that in view of the lis involved in Narender  

Chadha (supra) i.e.  inter se seniority of direct recruits and  

promotees,  the  said  decision  cannot  be  applied  to  cases  

where  the  initial  appointment  was  not  according  to  the  

12

Page 13

Rules.  Paras 19 and 20 of the decision in  State of West  

Bengal (supra)  may be usefully extracted hereinbelow.

“19. The  constitution  bench  in  Maharashtra  Engineers  case,  while  dealing with  Narender Chadha emphasised  the  unusual  fact  that  the  promotees  in  question  had  worked continuously for long periods of nearly fifteen to   twenty years on the posts without being reverted, and  then proceeded to state the principle thus: (SCC p. 726,   para 13)

“We,  therefore,  confirm  the  principle  of   counting  towards  seniority  the  period  of   continuous  officiation following an appointment   made in accordance with the rules prescribed for   regular  substantive  appointments  in  the  service.”

20. The constitution bench having dealt  with  Narender  Chadha in this manner, to indicate the above principle,   that  decision  cannot  be  construed  to  apply  to  cases  where  the  initial  appointment  was  not  according  to   rules.”

19. All  the  aforesaid  discussion  would  lead  us  to  the  

conclusion that any departure from the views expressed and  

conclusions reached in Dr. Anuradha Bodi (supra) will not  

be necessary or justified.  Accordingly, we do not find any  

merit or substance in the appeals under consideration.  They  

are, therefore, dismissed but without any order as to costs.

      .…....…………………………J.

13

Page 14

                     [RANJAN GOGOI]

    .…....…………………………J.                       [M. Y. EQBAL]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 2, 2014.

14