CWP No.942 of 1988 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:31.10.2008. Jagmohan Singh and another … Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab … Respondent. Present: Mr.Dhiraj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Yatinder Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab,for the respondent. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioners are MBBS Degree holders. They were appointed as Medical Officers by the State of Punjab along with a number of other doctors vide appointment letter dated 13.03.1984, (Annexure P-1) in the pay scale of Rs.940-1850/-. The appointment was subject to certain conditions indicated therein. One of the conditions is for medical fitness as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the aforesaid appointment letter, which reads as follows:- “You should appear before the Standing Medical Board of Amritsar (in Civil Surgeon’s Office) on 16.3.84 or 03.3.1984 (Friday) at 9.00 a.m. to determine your fitness or otherwise. If declared fit by the Medical Board, you should report for duty to Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur, within seven days from the date of medical examination. In the event of your failure to report for duty within the CWP No.942 of 1988 : 2 : specified period, the offer of appointment made to you shall lapse and stand cancelled automatically.” In the aforesaid condition, an option was given to the selected candidates for medical examination either on 16.3.84 or on 30.3.84. Some of the selected candidates appeared before the Medical Board and on being found fit, they were appointed in the month of March, whereas the petitioners appeared for medical fitness before the Medical Board on 30.3.84 and they on being found fit, joined their duties on 07.04.84 and 04.04.1984, respectively. The doctors named in paragraph 6 of the writ petition joined before 30.3.1984 as they appeared for medical examination on 16.3.1984. The selection/appointment of the petitioners was for short term basis for a period of six months or till such time suitable candidates are appointed through the Punjab Public Service Commission. Before regular selection could take place by the Punjab Public Service Commission, the State Government issued order dated 01.09.1987 (Annexure P-2) whereby as many as 160 posts of doctors were taken out of the purview of the Public Service Commission and service of 158 ad hoc short term appointees were regularised. However, the petitioners were not regularized on the ground that they had not completed one year service as on 31.03.1985. It is, however, admitted position that the doctors named in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, who are also appointed along with the petitioners vide order dated 13.03.1984, had been regularized. No reply has been filed in this case by the respondents. It is, however, argued by the leaned counsel appearing for the respondent-State CWP No.942 of 1988 : 3 : that the doctors appointed within March 1984 and had completed one year service as on 31.3.1985, they were regularized. Since the petitioners joined their services on 07.04.1984 and 04.04.1984, respectively, they have not completed one year service as on 31.3.1985, therefore, they could not be regularized. It is not in dispute that some of the doctors who were regularized were appointed along with petitioners. What is the basis for fixation of cut off date is not known. As a matter of fact, the petitioners appointment has to be construed from 13.3.1984 as is evident from Annexure P-1, which itself is the appointment order. Their joining the service in the month of April, 1984, was only on the basis of the option given by the State to them for medical examination either on 16.3.1984 or 30.3.1984. Once they are found fit, their appointment has to be and should be construed from the date of the issue of the letter dated 13.3.84 and, thus, they have completed one year as on 31.3.1985. In this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of regularization as accorded to other similarly situated doctors. The petitioners have already rendered 24 years of service and they are still in service. Their initial selection on the basis of selection is evident from Annexure P-1, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of regularization in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC, 01, wherein the following directions have been made :- CWP No.942 of 1988 : 4 : “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filed up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify CWP No.942 of 1988 : 5 : that regularisation, if any, already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by- passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with the judgment given in Umadevi’s case (supra) and the Government instructions, if any, on the subject and pass appropriate orders on the question of parity with those appointees who were appointed along with petitioners and regularized. Let the process of consideration be completed within a period of four months from today. The petitioners shall be entitled to all service benefits for the service already rendered. No costs. 31.10.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO