Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from writ petitions filed by three medical officers employed on ad hoc, daily wage, or honorarium basis with Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., a public sector undertaking. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao was appointed in 1975 on honorarium and continued with artificial breaks until 1985, when his services were terminated. He challenged the termination and sought absorption as regular medical officer. Dr. J. Sanjeeva Kumar joined in 1985 on daily wage and sought regularisation from initial date. Dr. S. Prasada Rao joined in 1984 on daily wage and similarly sought regularisation. The Andhra Pradesh High Court single judges and Division Benches directed regularisation of these medical officers with effect from April 1, 1986, granting pay scale, two advance increments, and official accommodation, while denying seniority and promotion benefits. The appellant corporation challenged these directions before the Supreme Court, contending that its recruitment rules mandate selection through a Selection Committee, advertisement, screening, and interview, and regularisation without selection was impermissible. The respondent medical officers argued that they had worked for years without complaint, no regular selection had been conducted after 1984, and the High Court's directions were justified under State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 (4) SCC 118. The Supreme Court examined the recruitment rules and the principles laid down in Piara Singh, which held that ad hoc employees cannot be regularised as a matter of course but may be considered for regularisation if they satisfy eligibility criteria, have served for long periods, and no reservation policy is violated. The Court found that the High Court had erred in directing regularisation without requiring the medical officers to undergo the selection process prescribed by the recruitment rules. It held that merely long ad hoc service does not create a right to regularisation, and courts cannot substitute their own assessment for that of the selection committee. However, recognising the long service and satisfactory performance of the medical officers, the Court directed that they should be considered for regular appointment in accordance with the recruitment rules, keeping in view their eligibility and the reservation policy. The appeals were accordingly allowed, and the High Court's directions for deemed regularisation with retrospective effect were set aside, while protecting the medical officers' right to be considered for regular appointment through the proper selection process.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Ad Hoc Employees - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - High Court directed regularisation of three medical officers working on ad hoc, daily wage or honorarium basis without selection. Supreme Court reiterated that regularisation cannot be ordered without following recruitment rules and selection procedure; merely long years of ad hoc service does not create an indefeasible right to regularisation but such employees are entitled to be considered for regular appointment if eligible and no reservation policy violation, following State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 (4) SCC 118. Held that High Court directions for deemed regularisation with effect from April 1, 1986 without selection were erroneous and required modification to allow consideration in accordance with rules. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Selection Process - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Direct recruitment to Medical Officer post requires advertisement, screening, selection committee interview/aptitude test/group task, and approval of competent authority under the appellant corporation's recruitment rules. High Court bypassed this mandatory procedure in directing regularisation. Supreme Court held that courts under Article 226 cannot substitute their own assessment for selection by a duly constituted selection committee. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Arbitrary Termination - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - Termination of Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao's ad hoc appointment was quashed by High Court as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and reinstatement directed. Supreme Court did not disturb that finding but clarified that Article 14 does not guarantee regularisation; only protection against arbitrary state action. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Service Law - Benefits and Seniority - Pay Scale and Increments - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - High Court directed regularisation with two advance increments, official accommodation, and pay scale. Supreme Court held that such benefits flow only upon regular appointment through proper selection; ad hoc employees cannot claim parity with regular employees merely by length of service; seniority and promotions cannot be granted retrospectively. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in directing regularisation of ad hoc medical officers without requiring them to undergo selection as per the appellant corporation's recruitment rules; whether long continuous ad hoc service creates a right to regularisation; applicability of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's directions for deemed regularisation with effect from April 1, 1986, and ruled that regularisation must be in accordance with the appellant corporation's recruitment rules and after due selection process; the respondent medical officers' long ad hoc service entitled them to be considered for regular appointment if eligible and subject to reservation policy, but not to automatic regularisation, seniority, or retrospective benefits.
Law Points
- Regularisation cannot be ordered without following recruitment rules and selection process
- long-serving ad hoc employees may be considered for regularisation if eligible and no violation of reservation policy
- Article 14 prohibits arbitrary termination but does not confer right to regularisation
- directions under Article 226 must conform to service rules
- State of Haryana v. Piara Singh principles applied
