Temporary PMS doctors appointed against vacancies: seniority counted from initial appointment date, not only after regularisation.

The dominant issue was whether temporary doctors appointed in the PMS cadre, against substantive vacancies and in consultation with the State PSC, are entitled to seniority from the date of initial appointment or only from regularisation under the Regularisation Rules. The SC held that an earlier 3-Judge Bench, affirming the HC, correctly recognised continuity and seniority from initial appointment notwithstanding later regularisation, while a subsequent 2-Judge Bench contrary view limiting seniority to the date of regularisation was directly in conflict with binding larger-Bench precedent. The SC declared the 2-Judge Bench view not to be correct law and directed that the writ petitions be decided without relying on it, to be placed before a 3-Judge Bench for final disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the judgments dated 23.3.1995 and 26.7.1996 of a 2-Judge Bench are in conflict with the 3-Judge Bench judgment dated 24.11.1992 in SLP No. 13840/1992 and, if so, what is the effect of such conflict.

Analysis: The issue requires applying the doctrine that a decision of a Division Bench is binding on subsequent benches of the same or smaller strength to ensure consistency and certainty in law. The 3-Judge Bench decision in SLP No. 13840/1992 had upheld the High Court's conclusion on counting seniority from initial appointment for a class of temporary appointees. Subsequent 2-Judge Bench orders took a contrary view by applying Rule 7 of the Regularisation Rules to restrict seniority to the date of regularisation. The conflict is assessed in light of established principles that a Bench of lesser strength should follow the law declared by a larger Bench and, where disagreement is perceived, should refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than overrule or disregard the earlier larger-Bench decision.

Conclusion: The 2-Judge Bench judgments dated 23.3.1995 and 26.7.1996 are in conflict with the earlier 3-Judge Bench judgment dated 24.11.1992 and do not represent the correct declaration of law; the matters affected are to be placed before a Bench of three Judges for final disposal.

---