2002 (4) TMI 936 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there is in fact any conflict between the two sets of judgments? Held that - The judgment of the 2-Judge Bench of this Court dated 23.3.1995 as modified by the subsequent order dated 26.7.1996 by the same Bench does not lay down the correct law, being in conflict with the larger Bench judgment. If that be so, the above writ petitions, from which this reference has arisen, will have to be decided de hors the law laid down by those two judgments of the Bench of two learned Judges. Therefore, having decided the issue that has arisen for our consideration, we think it just that these writ petitions should now be placed before a Bench of three learned Judges for final disposal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conflict between judgments delivered by a 3-Judge Bench and a 2-Judge Bench regarding the seniority of temporary doctors.
2. Validity of seniority claims of temporary doctors based on their initial appointment versus regularisation under the Regularisation Rules.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of binding precedent in resolving conflicting judgments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conflict Between Judgments:
The primary issue involved is the conflict between the judgments of a 3-Judge Bench and a 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court regarding the seniority of temporary doctors in the U.P. Provincial Medical Services (PMS). The 3-Judge Bench upheld the right of temporary doctors to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment, as seen in Dr. Mathur's case. Conversely, the 2-Judge Bench ruled that temporary doctors could only count their seniority from the date of their regularisation under the Regularisation Rules.

2. Validity of Seniority Claims:
The temporary doctors, who were appointed to permanent vacancies in consultation with the Public Service Commission (PSC) and continued for a considerable length of time, argued that their seniority should be counted from their initial appointments. The Allahabad High Court upheld this claim, and the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court confirmed this judgment, stating, "We see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein." However, the 2-Judge Bench later held that "all adhoc appointments made de-hors the rules do not confer any right to permanency or seniority," and that seniority could only be acquired from the date of regular appointment according to the rules.

3. Doctrine of Binding Precedent:
The doctrine of binding precedent was a significant aspect of this case. The petitioners argued that the 2-Judge Bench could not overrule or differ from the judgment of the 3-Judge Bench, citing the principle that a smaller or coordinate Bench cannot overrule a decision of a larger Bench. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle, stating, "It is of paramount importance that the law declared by this Court should be certain, clear, and consistent." The Court referred to previous judgments, including Union of India v. Raghubir Singh and Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik, which emphasized that a Division Bench of the same or lesser number of Judges must follow the law declared by a larger Bench.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the judgments of the 2-Judge Bench dated 23.3.1995 and 26.7.1996 did not lay down the correct law as they conflicted with the judgment of the 3-Judge Bench dated 24.11.1992. The Court held that the writ petitions should be decided de hors the law laid down by the 2-Judge Bench and directed that these petitions be listed for disposal before a Bench of three learned Judges. The Court also noted the argument that the writ petitioners were not similarly placed as Dr. Mathur and that the judgment in Dr. Mathur's case might run counter to an earlier judgment in State of U.P. v. Dr. M.J. Siddique. These arguments were left to be considered by the Bench hearing the writ petitions.