Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a common order of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior in Transferred Applications Nos. 75 and 91 of 1991. Dr. S.M. Tiwari was initially appointed as a Research Assistant in 1968 and later as a Demonstrator in Surgery in 1969. In 1971, he was appointed as a Casualty Medical Officer (Lecturer Grade) on an ad hoc officiating basis, subject to selection by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. Although his duties included teaching work and he was paid non-practising allowance like lecturers, he was not treated as a lecturer for seniority purposes. After his representations were rejected and he failed selection for the lecturer post in 1977 and 1981, he filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 1987 seeking absorption as lecturer and seniority from 1971. During pendency, his services were regularised under the M.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment Rules, 1986 on 4.4.1987, and by order dated 21.7.1989 he was declared a lecturer in Surgery. The High Court dismissed the earlier petition as infructuous. Dr. Tiwari then challenged non-inclusion in the gradation list of lecturers published on 9.6.1989, leading to T.A. No. 91 of 1991. Dr. J.S. Chhabra filed a separate petition challenging recognition of Dr. Tiwari and others as lecturers, which became T.A. No. 75 of 1991. The Tribunal allowed Dr. Tiwari's application, directing seniority as lecturer from the date he started working as CMO (Lecturer Grade) in 1971, quashed the inconsistent condition in the 21.7.1989 order, and directed consideration for promotion to Reader. The Tribunal dismissed Dr. Chhabra's application. Dr. Chhabra filed two appeals and the State of Madhya Pradesh filed one appeal against the Tribunal's orders. The Supreme Court held that regularisation of ad hoc CMOs and their subsequent declaration as lecturers was not improper or illegal because the government had upgraded 24 CMO posts to lecturer scale, required identical qualifications, and had power under Article 309 to regularise and merge/redesignate equivalent posts. However, on the seniority issue, the Court held that Rule 12 of the M.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment Rules, 1986 explicitly provides that a person regularised under those Rules gets seniority only from the date of the order of regular appointment and is placed below persons already appointed as per recruitment rules. Dr. Tiwari had accepted regularisation under the Rules and never challenged their validity. Therefore, the principle of continuous officiation could not override the statutory rule. The Court set aside the Tribunal's direction granting seniority from 1971 and held that seniority should be counted from 4.4.1987, the date of regular appointment, not from 21.7.1989 when he was declared lecturer. Accordingly, the appeal of Dr. Chhabra against dismissal of T.A. No. 75 of 1991 was dismissed; his appeal against the order in T.A. No. 91 of 1991 was partly allowed; the State's appeal was allowed; no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments - Legality of Regularisation and Redesignation - M.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment Rules, 1986 - Government upgraded 24 posts of CMOs to lecturer scale and appointed doctors with same qualifications as lecturers on ad hoc basis subject to selection by Public Service Commission; later regularised their services under the 1986 Rules and declared them lecturers. Held that regularisation cannot be regarded as improper or illegal because the government had power under Article 309 to regularise and the posts were equivalent with same qualifications and teaching experience; declaration as lecturers was within government power. B) Service Law - Seniority - Seniority of Regularised Appointees - M.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment Rules, 1986, Rule 12 - Person appointed under the Rules is entitled to seniority only from date of order of regular appointment and placed below persons already appointed as per recruitment rules. Held that Dr. Tiwari could not be given seniority from earlier date of continuous officiation as CMO (Lecturer Grade); principle of continuous officiation cannot override statutory rules; tribunal erred in directing seniority from 1971; correct seniority date was 4.4.1987. C) Service Law - Equivalence of Posts - Classification and Redesignation - Casualty Medical Officer (Lecturer Grade) and Lecturer posts - Upgraded CMO posts were meant to be equivalent to lectures, same scale and qualifications; government could merge or redesignate them into lecturer cadre. Held that mere declaration as lecturer on 21.7.1989 did not mean seniority should be counted from that date; seniority from regular appointment date 4.4.1987 was fair and just.
Issue of Consideration
Whether regularisation of ad hoc Casualty Medical Officers (Lecturer Grade) and their subsequent declaration as lecturers was legal; from which date seniority of such regularised appointees should be counted as lecturers
Final Decision
Civil appeal filed by Dr. Chhabra against order in T.A. No. 75 of 1991 dismissed; appeal by Dr. Chhabra against order in T.A. No. 91 of 1991 partly allowed; Civil Appeal No. 6592 of 1995 by State allowed. The regularisation and declaration as lecturers upheld, but seniority direction set aside; seniority to be counted from 4.4.1987 as per Rule 12, not from 1971. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Regularisation of ad hoc appointees and subsequent redesignation as equivalent posts permissible under Article 309
- seniority under Rule 12 of M.P. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointment Rules
- 1986 counts only from date of regular appointment
- continuous officiation cannot override statutory rules
- posts with same pay scale and qualifications can be treated as equivalent
