Supreme Court upholds Single Judge's decision on Public Service Commission appointments, ad hoc doctors eligible for selection.

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's directions and upheld the Single Judge's decision. The State Government was instructed to notify vacancies to the Public Service Commission (PSC) for selection within six months. Ad hoc doctors could apply for selection, with the possibility of age relaxation. Ad hoc appointments would end upon regular candidate appointments. The PSC's appeals were allowed, while Dr. Vinay Rampal and the State's appeals were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in condoning and granting special leave.
2. Validity of ad hoc appointments and regularisation of services.
3. Power of the Government to relax recruitment rules.
4. Directions for regularisation of services by the High Court.
5. Consultation with the Public Service Commission (PSC).
6. Validity of the High Court's direction to regularise services.
7. Chain system of recruitment.

Summary:

1. Delay in Condoning and Granting Special Leave:
In SLP (C) Nos. 16496-502 of 1993, the delay was condoned, and special leave was granted in all cases.

2. Validity of Ad Hoc Appointments and Regularisation of Services:
The respondents were appointed as lecturers on an ad hoc basis in different disciplines of Medical Education. Their ad hoc appointments and subsequent regularisation were challenged. The learned Single Judge quashed their appointments, declaring them ultra vires of the Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1979 (the Rules). The Division Bench, however, held that the appointments were according to the Rules and directed the regularisation of services in consultation with the PSC.

3. Power of the Government to Relax Recruitment Rules:
The Government's power to relax the rules of recruitment was questioned. The Division Bench held that the Government has no power under Section 133 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution (Article 320 of the Constitution of India) to relax the recruitment rules.

4. Directions for Regularisation of Services by the High Court:
The High Court directed the PSC to evaluate the work and conduct of the respondents based on confidential reports and regularise their services. This direction was challenged by the PSC, arguing that such regularisation is illegal and de hors the Rules.

5. Consultation with the Public Service Commission (PSC):
Article 320 of the Constitution (Section 133 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution) mandates consultation with the PSC for recruitment. The High Court's direction to regularise services without following the prescribed recruitment process was held to be in violation of this constitutional requirement.

6. Validity of the High Court's Direction to Regularise Services:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction to regularise services through a hybrid procedure not contemplated by the Rules was illegal. The Rules prescribe direct recruitment or promotion by selection as the only modes of recruitment. The direction to regularise services was found to be in negation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and in violation of the statutory rules.

7. Chain System of Recruitment:
The contention to adopt a chain system of recruitment by notifying each year's vacancies was rejected. The Supreme Court held that such a system would deprive eligible candidates of their right to apply for recruitment, offending Articles 14 and 16.

Final Directions:
The Supreme Court set aside the directions issued by the Division Bench and confirmed those of the Single Judge. The State Government was directed to notify the vacancies to the PSC, which should complete the selection process within six months. The respondents, continuing as ad hoc doctors, were allowed to apply for selection, and the State Government was directed to consider age relaxation under Rule 9(3) if necessary. The ad hoc appointments would stand terminated upon the appointment of regularly selected candidates.

Appeal Outcome:
The appeals of the PSC were allowed, while the appeal of Dr. Vinay Rampal and the State appeal were dismissed. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

---