Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus HARISH BALKRISHNA MAHAJAN

Decided
23 October 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 662 · 1996 INSC 1210
Also cited as
  • (1997) 3 SCC 194 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 662, margin F

The respondent was temporarily appointed as a Medical Officer on monthly basis in the Central Government Health Scheme on August 10, 1982. During the unfortunate strike of the doctors as trade unionists, unmindful of the ethic.:al and medical code of conduct, he was appointed and even continued in the service till August, 1987. When his services were terminated, he had gone to the Tribunal and filed OA No. 701/89. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated 21.12.1994 directed the appellants to regularise the service of the respondent in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

p. 662, margin F

The controversy is no longer res integra. In similar circum~tances, this Court had considered the entire controversy in J & K Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors., (1994] 2 SCC 630. Admittedly, the post of doctors in the Central Government Health Scheme are required to be filled up by recruitment through Union Public Service Commission. Therefore, the direction to consider the case of the respondent in consultation with the Public Service Commission for regularisation is in violation of the statutory rules and Article 320 of the Constitution of India. The only course known to law is that the Union of India shall be required to notify the recruitment to the Public Service Commission and Union Public Service Commission shall conduct the examination inviting the applications from all the eligible persons including the persons like the . respondents. It would be for the respondent to apply for and seek selection in accordance with Rules. Therefore, the direction is in violation of Article 320 of the Constitution.

p. 663, margin A

The learned counsel for the respondent seeks to place reliance on the directions issued by this Court in Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority, (1987] Supp. SCC 497. It is seen that the Public Service Commission was required to recruit the candidates and, therefore, the additional Medical Officers working in the Railway Department in the latter case were directed to be regularised in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. It would be seen that when the recruitment was to be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Public Service Commission in terms of the statutory Rules made under Article 320 of the Constitution, necessarily the recruitment is required to be made in that manner and in no other manner. Therefore, this Court did not intend to by-pass the above procedure in regularisation of their services. This Court, in similar circumstances, considered the same question in Union of India v. Dr. Arnn Kumar Shanna, (CA No. 4876/94].

p. 663, margin D

In that view, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal stands set aside. It would be open to the respondent to apply for selection. In case he is barred by age, it is needless to mention that the Union of India would consider necessary relaxation of the age to the extent of the period of service he has rendered on temporary basis. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 663, margin F