1992 (7) TMI 355 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the selection process for the post of Professor of Medicine.
2. Impact of interim stay orders on the appointment process.
3. Regularisation of ad hoc promotions under the 1988 Rules.
4. Determination of seniority between the Appellant and Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
5. Effect of the Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospitals (Taking Over) Act, 1983 on the appointments.
6. Interpretation of Rule 20(1) of the Uttar Pradesh State Colleges Medical Teachers Service Rules, 1990.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Selection Process for the Post of Professor of Medicine:
The selection process for the post of Professor of Medicine at King George Medical College, Lucknow, was initiated in December 1984 to fill a vacancy for the year 1982-83. The Appellant and Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were among the applicants. Interviews were conducted on 24th February 1986, resulting in Dr. S.S. Aggarwal being placed first and the Appellant second on the select list. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were not selected.

2. Impact of Interim Stay Orders on the Appointment Process:
Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed Writ Petition No. 1545 of 1986 challenging the selection list, resulting in an interim stay order from the High Court, which prevented the appointment of Dr. Aggarwal or the Appellant. Consequently, Dr. Bhatia was appointed to the post in October 1986 under the promotees quota, as the vacancy could not be filled by a direct recruit due to the stay order.

3. Regularisation of Ad Hoc Promotions under the 1988 Rules:
Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 sought regularisation of their ad hoc appointments under the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Promotions (on the posts within the purview of the PSC) Rules, 1988, through Writ Petition No. 8424 of 1989. The High Court ordered that their regularisation be considered by the State Government, and any appointment made pursuant to the 1986 selection would be provisional. Their promotions were regularised in the vacancies of 1983-84 and 1986-87 before the Appellant's appointment in October 1989.

4. Determination of Seniority Between the Appellant and Respondents Nos. 4 and 5:
The central issue was whether the regularisation of Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 entitled them to seniority over the Appellant. The High Court ruled that since the Appellant's appointment order dated 31st October 1989 did not specify a back date, his seniority would be counted from the date of actual appointment. However, the Supreme Court held that the Appellant's appointment related to the 1982-83 vacancy and that the interim stay order had unjustly delayed his appointment. The Court concluded that Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 could not take advantage of their own wrong in obtaining the stay order and blocking the Appellant's appointment.

5. Effect of the Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospitals (Taking Over) Act, 1983 on the Appointments:
The King George Medical College was taken over by the State Government under the Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospitals (Taking Over) Act, 1983. Sections 5 and 6 of the Act were declared ultra vires Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution by the High Court. Although the State Government initially filed a Special Leave Petition against this decision, it later withdrew the petition and accepted the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court noted that the seniority determination should proceed as if the Act and the Rules made thereunder had no effect.

6. Interpretation of Rule 20(1) of the Uttar Pradesh State Colleges Medical Teachers Service Rules, 1990:
Rule 20(1) governs the determination of seniority based on the date of substantive appointment. The High Court interpreted the rule to mean that the Appellant's seniority should be counted from 31st October 1989. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the Appellant's appointment was for the 1982-83 vacancy and that the omission of this detail in the appointment order was a clerical error. The Court directed the University to fix the Appellant's seniority between the actual date of Dr. Bhatia's appointment and the regularisation of Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the University to determine the Appellant's seniority based on the date he could have been appointed to the 1982-83 vacancy had there been no stay order. The Appellant's seniority must be fixed between Dr. Bhatia's appointment and the regularisation of Respondents Nos. 4 and 5. There was no order as to costs.