Judgement PATTANAIK, J. :- Leave granted in S. L. P. (C) No. 18846/99. 2. The determination of inter se seniority between the two categories of doctors engaged by the Railway Administration is the subject-matter of dispute in these batch of cases. It would be necessary to state the facts in a greater detail in view of the chequard history of the case. Prior to 1986, normal recruit to the post of Assistant Medical Officers under the Railway Administration was being made through a process of selection by the Union Public Service Commission. There was no statutory rule framed for the purpose of recruitment. Government of India in the Ministry of Railway through the Railway Board had, however, permitted the General Managers to recruit Assistant Medical Officers in Class II on ad hoc basis for a period not exceeding six months and such power had been conferred in the public interest as the process of selection through Union Public Service Commission was taking some time. The ad hoc recruits, however, were advised to apply to Union Public Service Commission in response to the advertisement to be issued by the Commission for getting regular appointment. The administrative instructions dated 21st May, 1966, unequivocally indicated that the ad hoc appointees should be made known that their services would stand terminated as soon as candidates selected by the Commission become available. The aforesaid Government Order also provided that the ad hoc appointees could be retained beyond six months with prior approval of the Board. Some time in the year 1986 several such doctors having failed in their attempt to get selected through the Union Public Service Commission apprehended termination of their services, therefore, a batch of writ petitions were filed in this Court under Article 32, which stood disposed of by judgment dated 24th September, 1987, Dr. A. K. Jain v. Union of India, reported in 1987 Supp SCC 497. By the time these writ petitions were taken up for consideration a set of Recruitment Rules have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, called The Indian Railway Medical Department (Assistant Medical officers Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as "The Recruitment Rules"), and the said Rule never contemplated of any ad hoc appointment. By the time these writ petitions were taken up for consideration a set of Recruitment Rules have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, called The Indian Railway Medical Department (Assistant Medical officers Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as "The Recruitment Rules"), and the said Rule never contemplated of any ad hoc appointment. Even under the provisions of the 1794 Railway Establishment Code, which governs the recruitment of the Group A service in the various departments of Railways, as indicated in Section 205, no ad hoc recruitment was contemplated, and as such, the ad hoc appointments were in exigencies of service to meet a particular contingency under the Administrative Orders of the Board. This Court disposed of the batch of cases with following directions :- "(1) The services of all doctors appointed either as Assistant Medical Officers or as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on ad hoc basis up to October 1, 1984 shall be regularised 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. Such evaluation shall be done by the Union Public Service Commission. The doctors so regularised shall be appointed as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers with effect from the date from which they have been continuously working as Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional Medical Officer. The Railway shall be at liberty to terminate the services of those who are not so regularised. If the services of any of the petitioners appointed prior to October 1, 1984 have been terminated except on resignation or on disciplinary grounds, he shall be also considered for regularisation and if found fit his services shall be regularised as if there was no break in the continuity of service but without any back wages. (2) The petitions of the Assistant Medical Officers/Assistant Divisional Medical Officers appointed subsequent to October 1, 1984 are dismissed. But however direct that the Assistant Divisional Medical Officers who may have been now selected by the Union Public Service Commission shall first be posted to the vacant posts available wherever they may be. (2) The petitions of the Assistant Medical Officers/Assistant Divisional Medical Officers appointed subsequent to October 1, 1984 are dismissed. But however direct that the Assistant Divisional Medical Officers who may have been now selected by the Union Public Service Commission shall first be posted to the vacant posts available wherever they may be. If all those selected by the UPSC cannot be accommodated against the available vacant posts they may be posted to the posts now held by the doctors appointed on ad hoc basis subsequent to October 1, 1984 and on such posting the doctor holding the post on ad hoc basis shall vacate the same. While making such postings the principal of last come, first go shall be observed by the Railways on zonal basis. If any doctor who is displaced pursuant to the above direction is willing to serve in any other zone where there is a vacancy he may be accommodated on ad hoc basis in such vacancy. (3) All Assistant Medical Officers/Assistant Divisional Medical Officers working on ad hoc basis shall be paid the same salary and allowances as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on the revised scale with effect from January 1, 1986. The arrears shall be paid within four months. (4) No ad hoc Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional Medical Officer who may be working in the Railways shall be replaced by any newly appointed AMO/ADMO on ad hoc basis. Whenever there is need for the appointment of any AMO/ADMO on ad hoc basis in any zone the existing ad hoc AMO/ADMOs who are likely to be replaced by regularly appointed candidates shall be given preference. (5) If the ad hoc doctors appointed after October 1, 1984 apply for selection by the Union Public Service Commission the Union of India and the Railways Department shall grant relaxation in age, to the extent of the period of service rendered by them as ad hoc in the Railways." Be it be stated the Court took a compassionate view of the matter and directed regularisation of the ad hoc doctors in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission on the evaluation of their work and on the basis of their Confidential Reports, but did not indicate as to how their seniority in the cadre could be determined. An Interlocutory Application, titled Dr. An Interlocutory Application, titled Dr. M. A. Haque v. Union of India was thereafter filed in this Court for appropriate direction as to how their seniority could be determined. This application was disposed of by order dated 18-2-1993, since reported in (1993) 2 SCC 213 : (1993 AIR SCW 784 : 1993 Lab IC 996). Before filing of the aforesaid Interlocutory Application the Union of India had itself moved an application before the Court and that stood disposed of by order dated 1-11-1988 and the order was to the following effect :- "We have heard learned counsel for the Union of India (the applicant in this civil miscellaneous petition) and the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition. In the circumstances of the case we feel that the Union Government should be directed to implement the order passed by us in the Writ Petition Nos. 522, 875, 180 and 200 of 1987 and connected cases on September 24, 1987 1795 in full except to the extent of fixing the inter se seniority between the petitioners in the writ petition and the direct recruits. We accordingly made an order in this case. The question of seniority, however, is left to be decided by the Government in the light of the decision to be rendered by this Court in the cases which are pending before the Constitution Bench involving similar questions. If any person is aggrieved by the decision of the Government on the question of seniority he is at liberty to question it in an appropriate forum. The order passed by us in the writ petition subject to the above modification shall be complied with by the Union Government within two months without failure. The civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly." In Interlocutory Application this Court was concerned with those Assistant Divisional Medical Officers who had been appointed between 1968 and 1st October, 1984, whose services stood regularised pursuant to the order of this Court in Jains case 1987 Suppl SCC 497, but the seniority had not been fixed up. The civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly." In Interlocutory Application this Court was concerned with those Assistant Divisional Medical Officers who had been appointed between 1968 and 1st October, 1984, whose services stood regularised pursuant to the order of this Court in Jains case 1987 Suppl SCC 497, but the seniority had not been fixed up. The Court for fixing the inter se seniority of the doctors considered the existence of three classes of Assistant District Medical Officers - (i) The outsiders who have been directly recruited through Union Public Service Commission on the basis of written test or interview; (ii) Ad hoc appointees who were initially recruited ad hoc but in the course of their continuance as ad hoc came to be regularly recruited through Union Public Service Commission by appearing in the written examination and interview; (iii) The petitioners in Dr. Jains case who either did not appear in the written examination and interview or had failed to get through the UPSC examination but could be regularised because of the Courts order dated 24th September, 1987 (1987 Suppl SCC 497) as well as the Clarificatory order passed on 1-11-1988 on the application filed by the Union of India. By the date an Interlocutory Application was being considered the Constitution Bench decision in the Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association case had already been pronounced. (1990) 2 SCC 715 : ( AIR 1990 SC 1607 : 1990 Lab IC 1304). The Court considered the principles evolved in the direct recruits case and held that neither guideline A nor guideline B would govern the case of those Assistant Divisional Medical officers who could be regularised only in pursuance to the earlier orders of the Court in Jains case (supra). The Court ultimately held that so far as, the outsiders, who have been directly recruited through the UPSC and the ad hoc appointees, who have been also regularised by appearing in the written examination conducted by the UPSC and being selected by the UPSC, their seniority will be determined according to the dates of their regular appointment and the ad hod appointees who could not get selected or did not appear in the examination conducted by the UPSC could be placed in the seniority list after two former categories. It may be stated for the purpose of convenience that the nomenclature of these three categories of doctors is assigned as :- (i) outsiders, directly recruited doctors on the basis of selection through UPSC; (ii) insiders, ad hoc recruits those regularised after being successful in the UPSC examination and on being selected by the UPSC, and (iii) the unsuccessful Medical Officers through UPSC who stood regularised pursuant to the orders of the Court in Dr. A. K. Jain (supra) and the subsequent clarificatory order dated 1-11-1988 on the application filed by the Union of India. In the application which was disposed of by order dated 18-2-1993 ( 1993 (2) SCC 213 ) this Court was actually concerned with evolving a principle of determining inter se seniority between the third category of Medical Officers, namely, who were regularised pursuant to the order of this Court in Dr. A. K. Jains case and the direct recruit Medical Officers appointed on the basis of they being selected by the Union Public Service Commission. The inter se dispute between those outsiders direct recruits and the insiders direct recruits, who were initially appointed on ad hoc basis but got themselves selected by appearing in the examination through UPSC had not been really in issue though in the ultimate analysis the Court had made some observation in respect of them. While the matter stood thus Dr. P. Srinivasulu and 20 others who belong to the second category, namely, insider ad hoc recruits who got themselves regularised after being selected by the UPSC either by written examination or by interview filed an application before the 1796 Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi which was registered as O.A. No. 1603 of 1987. The Tribunal in the aforesaid case came to the conclusion that the ad hoc appointees being regularised after being selected through the UPSC would be entitled to get their ad hoc period also counted towards seniority, and therefore, the seniority list that had been drawn up on 10th June, 1987 was quashed. This order of the Tribunal is dated 18th March, 1993. It may be stated herein that the Interlocutory Application that had been filed in Writ Petition No. 1165 of 1986 though had been disposed of on 18th February, 1993 but the same had not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal. This order of the Tribunal is dated 18th March, 1993. It may be stated herein that the Interlocutory Application that had been filed in Writ Petition No. 1165 of 1986 though had been disposed of on 18th February, 1993 but the same had not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal was assailed by the Union of India in Special Leave Application, which was registered as SLP (C) No. 10714 of 1993, but the Court refused to grant leave after hearing the counsel for parties by order dated 15-11-1993. While dismissing the Special Leave Application the Court did consider the order dated 18th February, 1993 passed in Interlocutory Application ( 1993 (2) SCC 213 : (1993 AIR SCW 784 : 1993 Lab IC 996) and came to the conclusion that the two category of people who are being dealt with are different and what has been stated in Interlocutory Application will have no application to the case of Srinivasulu since Srinivasulu and others had been selected through UPSC and got regularised. The Union of India thereafter filed an application for clarification and modification of the order dated 15-11-1993, which was registered as I.A. No. 2 in Special Leave Petition No. 10714/93. But that was also dismissed by order dated 13-5-1994 holding that no clarification is needed. It appears, that several writ petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, some by the Doctors Association and some by the individual were also dismissed by this Court subsequent to the aforesaid order dated 28th February, 1993 and the order in Srinivasulus case was implemented and those of the doctors who were party to the said case (21 in number) their seniority was revised by the Union of India by order dated 24th August, 1994. One doctor D. P. Pande, a direct recruit, had filed a writ petition under Article 32, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 612 of 1994, that was, however, dismissed by the Court on 4-10-1994. While dismissing the writ petition this Court had observed that dismissal will not prevent the petitioners from moving the Tribunal or any other appropriate forum. Said Dr. Pande then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, but the application was dismissed for default. A writ petition was filed by a Dr. Satish Chandra, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 30 of 1995. Said Dr. Pande then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, but the application was dismissed for default. A writ petition was filed by a Dr. Satish Chandra, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 30 of 1995. But that was withdrawn and he filed a Special Leave Petition which was registered as S.L.P. (Civil) No. CC 4125 of 1995. That was also dismissed by order dated 11-4-1997. Dr. Lalita Rao-respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2478-79 of 2000, filed application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi claiming same benefit that had been given to Srinivasulu. This Application was registered as OA No. 321 of 1996. The Direct Recruits Railway Doctors Association also filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court, which was registered as C.W.P. 2802 of 1997. Some direct recruit doctors also individually filed writ petition in Delhi High Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 2795 of 1997. Delhi High Court by judgment dated 16-4-1999 dismissed the writ petitions filed on the ground that the Special Leave application against the judgment of the Tribunal in Srinivasulus case having been dismissed the relief sought for by the direct recruits cannot be granted. The said judgment of the Delhi High Court is under challenge in this Court in C. A. No. 3057 of 1999. Civil Appeal No. 2478-79 of 2000 have been filed by the Union of India against the said judgment of Delhi High Court dated 16-4-1999 passed in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2802 of 1997 FOR CITATION : AIR 2001 SC 1792