Supreme Court Upholds Direct Recruitment to Selection Grade in Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I Rules. Direct Appointment Permissible Under Rules 5, 9(2) and 9(3) and Seniority of Direct Recruit Appointed Earlier to Selection Grade Not Disturbed.

Service matter concerning the validity of direct appointment to the selection grade of Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I and the fixation of seniority in that grade.

The appellant sought to quash the order dated 20 October 1966 appointing respondent No.2 to the selection grade and to declare that the appellant and respondent No.3 are senior to respondent No.2 in the selection grade.

The appellant alleged that appointment to the selection grade could only be by promotion from Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I and not by direct recruitment, and that even if direct recruitment was permissible, respondent No.2 should be placed below the appellant and respondent No.3 in seniority because they were senior to him in the time scale of Class I service.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court decided L.P.A. No. 288 of 1968 on 13 August 1969 against the appellant, leading to the present appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court.

Whether direct appointment to the selection grade of Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I is permissible under the Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1940, or whether appointment to the selection grade can only be by promotion from Class I service. If direct appointment to the selection grade is permissible, what is the seniority of such a direct appointee vis-à-vis existing members of Class I service who are later promoted to the selection grade?

Appellant contended that Rule 9(2) states that members of the service shall be eligible for promotion to the selection grade, which means only Class I members can be promoted to the selection grade, and there can be no direct appointment to that grade. Appellant argued that Rule 5 provides for appointment to the service either by promotion from Class II or by direct recruitment, but that direct recruitment can only be to Class I service and not to the selection grade because Rule 5 does not specifically provide for direct appointment to selection grade. Respondents contended that the selection grade is part and parcel of Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I as defined in Rule 2(c), and therefore Rule 5's reference to appointment to the service by direct recruitment includes direct appointment to the selection grade. Respondents submitted that Rule 9(3), which limits the number of appointments in the selection grade to 25 per cent of total appointments in the service, uses the word 'appointment' in a sense that includes both promotion and direct recruitment. On seniority, respondents argued that respondent No.2, having been appointed to the selection grade on 20 October 1966 before the appellant and respondent No.3 were appointed on 1 November 1966, should rank senior to them in the selection grade.

The service as defined in Rule 2(c) means Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I, and the selection grade is a part and parcel of that service. Rule 5, which provides for appointment to the service either by promotion from Class II or by direct recruitment, embraces both Class I and the selection grade. Rule 9(2) does not restrict eligibility for promotion to the selection grade only to members of Class I; its proviso only bars any member from claiming promotion as of right. The word 'appointment' in Rule 9(3) includes both promotion and direct recruitment. The rules contemplate direct appointment to the selection grade in appropriate cases when suitable Class I members are not available for promotion. Where there are no specific rules for fixation of seniority in the selection grade in case of direct appointment, the seniority of a direct recruit appointed earlier to the selection grade cannot be disturbed.

The service as defined in rule 2(c) means the Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I. Selection grade is the Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I. Direct appointment to selection grade is not only contemplated in the rules particularly rules 5, 9(2) and 9(3) but is also the implicit idea inherent in the words 'direct recruitment and direct appointment'. Where there are no specific rules in regard to the fixation of seniority in the Selection Grade in the case of direct appointment, the second respondent, having been recruited earlier than the appellant and the third respondent, his seniority should not be disturbed.

The appellant and respondent No.3 were confirmed in Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I on 26 February 1955 and 28 February 1955 respectively. Respondent No.2 was appointed temporarily as Chief Medical Officer on 16 July 1962 and joined on 4 August 1962. The post was declared additional on 18 December 1962. Public notice for permanent filling was issued in April 1963; respondent No.2 applied and was selected. Appointment order was issued on 10 May 1963 with probation of two years from 4 August 1962. Higher starting pay was allowed on 30 August 1963 with effect from 17 April 1963. Respondent No.2 was confirmed on 9 December 1965 with effect from 17 April 1963 as Principal Medical Officer, Chandigarh. On 20 October 1966, respondent No.2 was appointed to the selection grade. The appellant and respondent No.3 were appointed to the selection grade on 1 November 1966. The appellant challenged the order before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in L.P.A. No. 288 of 1968, which was dismissed on 13 August 1969. The appellant then filed the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court.

• Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1940: Rule 2(c), Rule 3, Rule 5, Rule 6, Rule 7(1), Rule 8, Rule 9(1), Rule 9(2), Rule 9(3)