Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal and Anr. v. the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
Leave granted, we have heard counsel on both sides.
The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by the judg- H
663
A ment of this Court reported in J.& K Public Se1vice Commission v. Dr.
Nwinder Mohan, [1994] 2 SCC 630. It is not in dispute that the appellants
were recruited on ad hoc basis and have been continuing as such. It is their
contention that since they had put in more than 13 years of service they
are entitled to regularisation of service and approached the High Court for
direction to regularise their services. The High Court has followed the ratio
in the above judgment and dismissed the petition. In the light of the
judgment of this Court the settled legal position now is that the recruitment
to the service should be governed by the appropriate statutory rules. Under
the rules the regular recruitment to the posts shall be made by the Public
Service Commission. Consequentially, the ad hoc appointments would be
C only temporary appointments de ho"· the rules, pending regular, recruit
ment without conferring any right to regularisation of service. This Court
in Nminder Mohan'.' case (supra) had given the following directions:
11
Accordingly, we set aside the directions issued by the Division
Bench of the High Court and confirm those of the Single Judge
and direct that State Government of the J & K to notify the
vacancies to the PSC which would process and complete the
selection, as early as possible, within a period of six months from
the date of the receipt of this order. The State Government should
on receipt of the recon1mendation, make appointments in the order
mentioned in the selection list within a period of two months
thereafter. Since the respondents have been continuing as ad hoc
doctors, they shall continue till the regularly selected candidates
are appointed. They are also entitled to apply for selection. In case
any of the respondents are barred by age, the State Government
is directed to consider the cases for necessary relaxation under
Ruic 9(3) of the age qualification. If any of the respondents are
not selected, the ad hoc appointment shall stand terminated with
the appointment of the selected candidate. The direction sought
for by Dr. Vinay Rampa! cannot be given. His appeal is accordingly
dismissed and the State appeal is also dismissed. The appeals of
the PSC are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances parties
are directed to bear their O\Vn costs.
11
Following the above directions, there shall be a direction to the State
Government to notify the vacancies to the Public Service Commission
H within a period of two months from today. On notification so made, it
DR.S.S.JAMWAL v. STATE 665
would be open lo the appellants to apply for regular recruitment. It would A
be for the PSC to consider the respective claims of the candidates who
have applied for and lo make necessary selection according to rules. On
selection so made and recommendation made to the State Government,
the Slate Government will make appointments as per rules within a period
of two months from the date of the receipt of the list of the selected B
candidates from the PSC. The PSC is directed to complete the process of
the selection within a period of three months from the date of the receipt
of the requisition. The State Government after receipt of the lists shall
make the necessary appointments in accordance with law. Till then the
appellants would continue only on ad hoc basis till the regularly selected
candidates are appointed. C
It is obvious that the appellants have become barred by age for the
direct recruitment. It would, therefore, be necessary that the State Govern
ment would relax the necessary age qualification so as to enable them to
apply for and seek recruitment through PSC.
The contesting respondents who have come on record have stated
that the panel stands expired during the interregnum due to the order of
suspension granted by this Court. Under these circumstances, the life of
the panel is extended for the period during which the stay order is in
operation.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No. costs.
T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.