Background Facts

The Department of Legal affairs of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare made a proposal to Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for regularization of services of the applicants employed during 1994-97 on ad hoc basis. The UPSC assessed the suitability of the applicants on the basis of relevant ACRs, bio-data and their performance. It was found by the UPSC that they were 'FIT' for regular appointment to the grade of Medical Officer.

Then, by a memo dated 4th February, 2016, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare intimated that the President has accepted the recommendations of the UPSC. Therefore it had pleased to appoint the 25 doctors (ad hoc) working in different offices under Ministry of Labour as Medical Officers with effect from 18th September, 2014.

Subsequently, one of the doctors (respondent) in the recommended list filed an original application before the Tribunal claiming regularization from the date of initial appointment. The original application was allowed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed a writ petition which was dismissed. Challenging the dismissal order, the Union of India filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court but it was also dismissed.

The respondent again claimed regularization from the initial date of appointment by filing an original application. It was disposed of by an order directing the respondents to regularize the appointment of the applicant w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment and extend all consequential benefits within a period of 3 months.

Aggrieved by the order, the Union of India filed the writ petition.

It was argued by the petitioners that the implementation of the earlier orders of the Tribunal is strictly in personam and cannot be treated or quoted as a precedent in the respondent's case. When the initial appointment was ad hoc in nature and not in terms of the procedure prescribed in the recruitment rules, the Tribunal ought not to have directed regularization of the respondent's appointment with effect from the date of his initial appointment. The petitioners relied upon a memo dated 19th May, 2026 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India.

It was further argued that regularization should always be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked when, the deficiencies in ad hoc service rendered cannot be relaxed.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that as per memo dated 23rd August, 2020 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the petitioners after the appointment of 25 doctors on ad hoc basis directed that the seniority of 25 doctors is subject to outcome of the petition.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Court that as per the memo dated 4th February, 2016, the suitability of all the 25 ad hoc doctors was considered on the basis of their relevant ACRs, bio-data and their performance during the personal talk. They were found 'FIT' for appointment to the grade of Medical Officer in General Duty Medical Officer (GDMO) Sub-cadre of Central Health Service (CHS). Therefore, the UPSC issued recommendation in favour of the 25 ad hoc doctors including the respondent.

It was further observed that no material has been produced to show that the respondent is not similarly situated with the said 24 ad hoc doctors, who were ultimately regularized with effect from their respective dates of initial appointment.

It was further observed by the Court that the cases of all 25 doctors are closely connected. The UPSC recommended all 25 doctors by the memo dated 11th February, 2016. Therefore, based on the UPSC's recommendation, all of them were appointed.Therefore, the argument of petitioner that the earlier orders passed were strictly in personam was not acceptable to the Court.

It was held by the Division Bench that the Union of India being a model employer cannot violate the fundamental concept of equality in law and equal treatment in the matters of employment.

With the aforesaid observations, the Tribunal's order was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Union of India & Anr. v. Dr. Sanjoy Bhattacharyya

Case No. : WPCT 249 of 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners : Indrajeet Dasgupta, Guddu Singh

Counsel for the Respondent : Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, Shruti Mukhopadhyay, Dona Sanyal Nath