Case: Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. and Ors Vs. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao and Dr. S. Prasada Rao

April 1, 1986 and he should also be given two advance increments and official accommodation within six months.7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the appellant-Corporation has filed these appeals. 8. Shri Ram Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Corporation, has placed before us the Recruitment Rules framed by the appellant-Corporation for appointment against regular/temporary posts in connection with the affairs of the company including the post of Medical Officer. Under the said Rules, direct recruitment is to be resorted to when the post is not to be filled in by promotion as per the promotion procedure. For the purpose of direct recruitment, the Rules provide that normally an advertisement is issued in leading daily newspapers on all India basis to tap the potential available from the employment market, but simultaneously other sources of recruitment are also trapped and where the job required exceptional skills, knowledge and experience, which are not normally available in the employment market, the competent authority may decide to fill up the post on deputation of officers from the Central/State Governments and other public sector undertakings. The Rules make provision for screening of applications received in response to advertisements and preparation of a list of candidates who may be called for interview before the Selection Committee. The Rules provide through one or all the following selection methods: (i) Competitive Aptitude/Technical Test;(ii) Group Task; and(iii) Personal Interview. The recommendations of the Selection Committee are submitted to the competent authority for approval and after obtaining the approval of the competent authority appointment orders are issued.9. The submission of Shri Ram Kumar is that regular appointment on the post of Medical Officer can only be made through a process of selection by the Selection Committee in accordance with the aforementioned Rules and the High Court was in error in directing regularisation of all the three medical officers with effect from April 1, 1986 without their being required to undergo selection by the Selection Committee. On behalf of the respondents- medical officers, it has been urged that having regard to the fact that they had been working as medical officers for a number of years and there was no complaint about their performance during this period, the High Court was justified in giving the direction for their regularisation with effect from April 1, 1986 and for payment of regular salary at par with other medical officers with effect from that date. It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondents-medical officers that after 1984 no regular selection has been made and the respondents-medical officers had no opportunity of being considered for regular selection by the Selection Committee and that in these circumstances the High Court has not committed any error in giving the direction regarding regularisation. The learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Dr. A.K. Jain and others v. Union of India and others, 1987 Supp. SCC 497 . 10. We are unable to endorse the direction given by the High Court regarding regularisation of the respondents-medical officers with effect from April 1, 1986. The process of regularisation involves regular appointment which can be done only in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Having regard to the rules which have been made by the appellant-Corporation, regular appointment on the post of medical officer can only be made after the duly constituted Selection Committee has found the person suitable for such appointment. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao, though he had been working since 1976, was considered by the Selection Committee for regular appointment in the year 1981 and was not found suitable for such regular appointment. Dr. J. Sanjeeva Kumar and Dr. S. Prasada Rao were never considered by the Selection Committee for regular appointment. The fact that no regular selection has been made after their appointment on ad hoc basis does not mean that they are entitled to be regularised with effect from April 1, 1986. In view of the Rules prescribed by the appellant-Corporation, regularisation of the respondent-medical officers on the post of medical officer can be made only after they are considered and found suitable for such appointment by a duly constituted Selection Committee. As a result of the direction for regularisation given by the High Court, the requirement in the Rules regarding selection by a Selection Committee for the purpose of regular appointment on the post of medical officer has been dispensed with. This, in our opinion, was impermissible.11. The decision in Dr. A.K. Jain and others v. Union of India and others (supra) on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent-medical officers, does not lend any assistance to them. In that case it was directed that the regularisation of the Assistant Medical Officers/Assistant Divisional Medical Officers who were appointed on ad hoc basis upto October 1, 1984 shall be made in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission on the evaluation of their work and conduct on the basis of their confidential reports in respect of a period subsequent to October 1, 1982. In Dr. M.A. Haque and others v. Union of India and others, 1883(2) SCT 618(SC) : 1993(2) SC 213, this Court has deprecated the practice of by-passing of the Public Service Commission which would open a back door for illegal recruitment without limit. The direction given by the High Court that the respondent- medical officers should be regularised with effect from April 1, 1986 cannot, therefore, be upheld. The only direction that can be given in the matter of regularisation is that the respondent-medical officers should be considered by a duly constituted Selection Committee as per the Rules for the purpose of regular appointment on the post of medical officer and the appellant- Corporation should constitute a Selection Committee for that purpose. 12. We are, however, not inclined to interfere with the direction given by the High Court for payment of regular pay scales to the respondent-medical officers with effect from April 1, 1986.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. We are unable to endorse the direction given by the High Court regarding regularisation of the respondents-medical officers with effect from April 1, 1986. The process of regularisation involves regular appointment which can be done only in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Having regard to the rules which have been made by the appellant-Corporation, regular appointment on the post of medical officer can only be made after the duly constituted Selection Committee has found the person suitable for such appointment. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao, though he had been working since 1976, was considered by the Selection Committee for regular appointment in the year 1981 and was not found suitable for such regular appointment. Dr. J. Sanjeeva Kumar and Dr. S. Prasada Rao were never considered by the Selection Committee for regular appointment. The fact that no regular selection has been made after their appointment on ad hoc basis does not mean that they are entitled to be regularised with effect from April 1, 1986. In view of the Rules prescribed by the appellant-Corporation, regularisation of the respondent-medical officers on the post of medical officer can be made only after they are considered and found suitable for such appointment by a duly constituted Selection Committee. As a result of the direction for regularisation given by the High Court, the requirement in the Rules regarding selection by a Selection Committee for the purpose of regular appointment on the post of medical officer has been dispensed with. This, in our opinion, was impermissible.11. The decision in Dr. A.K. Jain and others v. Union of India and others (supra) on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent-medical officers, does not lend any assistance to them.We are, however, not inclined to interfere with the direction given by the High Court for payment of regular pay scales to the respondent-medical officers with effect from April 1, 1986.