Dr. R.R. Gautam vs P.K. Gupta, Commissioner, ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 1119 Del

$~56
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CONT.CAS(C) 146/2014 & CM No.4077/2014

       DR. R R GAUTAM                                     .... Petitioner
            Through  Petitioner in person.

                          versus

       P K GUPTA, COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL
       CORPORATION OF NORTH DELHI                 ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Manav Gupta, Advocate for Ms. Prabha Sahai Kaur, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (ORAL)

1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner, who appears in person. The petitioner is a practicing doctor, and is a direct recruit.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the recommendation dated 24.07.1998, of the Union Public Services Commission, pursuant to the decision of the Single Bench dated 14.05.1998 in WP(C) No.1550/1996, by which the Commission recommended the regularization of 53 doctors appointed on ad hoc basis, is in utter disregard, and in contravention of the decision of the appellate Court dated 05.02.2008 in LPA Nos.708/2001 and 138/2003, in which the aforesaid decision of the Single Judge was impeached.

3. The underlying case has a long litigious history, a brief narration of which would be required to understand the matter at hand better. Certain

persons, who were all ad hoc doctors, had filed a Writ Petition (C) No.1550/1996 seeking relief by way of a writ of mandamus, instructing the MCD to regularise their services in the grade GDMO-II with effect from the date of their initial appointment; and furthermore, to treat them as regular employees. By the decision dated 14.05.1998, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition, accepting the contention of the petitioners. Since this decision of the Single Judge was in contravention of a decision of the Supreme Court rendered six days earlier in Dr. Anuradha Bodi and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 293, it thereafter became the subject matter of an appeal, where it was set aside on 05.02.2008 in LPA Nos.708/2001 and 138/2003. It is noteworthy that the ratio in Dr. Anuradha Bodhi's case (supra), which made a departure from the decision of the Single Judge, was that ad hoc doctors are entitled to regularisation only from the date they are recommended for regularisation by the UPSC and not from the date of their initial appointment as ad hoc doctors by the MCD.

4. During the pendency of the said Letter Patent Appeals, the MCD rethought its decision; and upon reconsideration, passed an order dated 15.06.2007, by which, the date of regularisation was refixed in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Dr. Anuradha Bodi's case. In other words, the ad hoc doctors were now granted regularisation from the date their regularisation was recommended by the UPSC. This office order of the MCD was then challenged by the ad hoc doctors in WP(C) 4619/2007. This was transferred to the Tribunal and numbered as T.A. 398/2009. There, the ad hoc doctors filed an amendment application to raise an additional ground alleging that, the resolution which had been passed by the MCD earlier, on 17.01.2000, by which the services of ad hoc GDMOs-II, who were appointed during the periods 1982 to 1986 and from 1986-1989 were

regularized from the date of their initial appointment, was not objected to by the UPSC. On the other hand, the regularly appointed doctors challenged the aforesaid Resolution of the MCD dated 17.01.2000 itself before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1601/2010. These two matters were taken up together and disposed off by the Tribunal vide a common order dated 09.12.2010; which was then challenged in W.P.(C) No.2357/2011, where this Court dismissed T.A. No. 398/2009 but allowed O.A. No. 1601/2010, on 05.07.2011. By that judgment the Court held that the ratio of Dr. Anuradha Bodhi's case applied; and therefore MCD's earlier resolution could not be sustained, and was rightly recalled vide MCD's office order dated 15.06.2007. Throughout this chequered past, all decisions that were made were in accordance to the law as laid down in Dr. Anuradha Bodhi's case.

5. This Court has made it clear to the petitioner that there does not appear to be any scope for initiation of contempt proceedings, which may not be apparent to him since he is not a qualified Advocate; however, the petitioner has still persisted in carrying on with these proceedings, and on exercising his right to address the Court at length.

6. He further relies on a copy of the note sheet of a File bearing No.F.4/30(3)/93-AU.4/AP.1 to demonstrate that the proposal for regularization was examined by the UPSC pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.05.1998 in Writ Petition (C) No.1550/1996. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant directions of the learned Single Judge. Those directions are thus;

"The petitioners and similarly situated Doctors shall be regularized from the date of their initial appointment. The Union Public Service Commission shall pass appropriate orders on or before 31st July, 1998."

7. He submits that the recommendation of the UPSC for regularization

is therefore in terms of the aforesaid decision in the Writ Petition (C) No.1550/1996; and that since the said decision has been overturned by the Division Bench of this Court on 05.02.2008 in LPA Nos.708/2001 and 138/2003, therefore, this recommendation cannot hold the field. I do not agree. Ex- facie, this position is untenable. The Division Bench has not reversed the judgment dated 14.05.1998 of the learned Single Judge on all fours. In fact; and as already noted, the only conclusion reached by the Division Bench is that, as regards the mandate of the learned Single Judge to grant regularization from the date of initial ad hoc appointment, the same is unsupportable; and since, even after the decision of the Single Judge, the regularization, in fact, has not been granted by the MCD from the date of initial ad hoc appointment, therefore, nothing further was required to be said by the Division Bench with regard to that specific direction. However, as far as the fact that regularization had to be granted; and that the UPSC was required to make a recommendation in that behalf; that has not been reversed. Not only that, the Division Bench, by way of an abundant caution, also clarified that since the order of 15.06.2007 of the Corporation is currently under challenge separately, therefore, it is not expressing any view on the merits of that matter, which was left open.

8. The petitioner also relies on subsequent orders passed by the Division Bench in two Review Petitions bearing Nos.116/2008 and 151/2008, that had been moved after the decision of the Division Bench in the aforesaid LPA Nos.708/2001 and 138/2003. These review petitions were decided on 12.09.2008.

9. Significantly, the order of the Corporation dated 15.06.2007; which has been passed after the decision of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.1550/1996, and which was also noticed by the Appeal Court

whilst disposing off LPA Nos.708/2001 and 138/2003 impugning the decision of the learned Single Judge; has been passed keeping in mind not only the directions of the learned Single Judge, but also the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Anuradha Bodi. Therefore, this decision of the MCD is a composite decision looking to the overall circumstances; and it cannot be said to be a decision strictly in compliance of the mandate of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.1550/1996 alone.

10. At the same time, the petitioner has also tried to impugn the correctness of that decision of the MCD of 15.06.2007 on merits. It has been pointed out to him that the challenge to this decision on merits was raised in a separate writ petition, and which challenge was kept open even by the Division Bench in the LPA.

11. Looking to the overall circumstances, there is no force in this petition.

12. At this stage the petitioner has thereafter tried to rely on interim orders passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.708/2001 on 13.02.2002 when the appeal was admitted. The said order states as follows:

"LPA No.708/01

Admit.

Appellant shall file informal paperbooks in requisite numbers. List on 3.5.2002.

All action taken shall abide by the decision of the appeal."

13. He contends that the direction that, "all action taken shall abide by the decision of the appeal", is significant; and must result in quashing the decision of the UPSC dated 24.07.1998 because it was taken only in pursuance of the directions of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated

14.05.1988 in Writ Petition (C) No.1550/98; and since the said judgment stood set aside on 05.02.2008, therefore, all consequent action taken in the meanwhile pursuant to the single judge's decision, must also stand set aside.

14. Either deliberately, or for lack of understanding of the true nature of the process that in fact operated in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the petitioner has quite overlooked the fact that actually the UPSC was rendering its opinion on 24.07.1998, only as regards the suitability for regularisation, whilst the MCD sought that opinion keeping in mind the mandate of the single judge that services had to be regularised from the date of initial appointment. However, the UPSC had nothing to do with the latter aspect of that matter, and it appears to have confined itself only to the question of suitability for regularisation. Consequently, when the MCD became aware of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Anuradha Bodhi's case, mandating that the ad hoc doctors are entitled to regularisation from the date their regularisation is recommended by the UPSC and not from the date of their initial appointment, the MCD appears to have unilaterally adopted this position on 15.06.2007. This was done during the pendency of the aforesaid appeals impugning the decision of the Single Judge before the Division Bench. The result of this decision by the MCD on 15.06.2007 was that it decided to grant regularisation to ad hoc doctors from the date regularisation was recommended by the UPSC in preference to the date of their initial appointment, from which it was earlier granted by the MCD in terms of the decision of the Single Judge.

15. While deciding the aforesaid LPA Nos. 708/2001 and 138/2003, the appellate Court was obviously appraised of these circumstances. This awareness is obvious from the following observation of the Division Bench in LPA Nos. 708/2001 and 138/2003;

"It appears that during the pendency of the appeals in this Court, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi being aware of the aforesaid judgment passed a fresh order on 15 th June, 2007 whereby they have virtually denied the relief of regularisation to those persons from the date of their initial appointment on the ground that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court permits such benefit to be given only from the date of their names being approved by the Union Public Service Commission."

It was under these circumstances that the appellate Court did not consider it necessary to set aside that decision of the MCD dated 17.01.2000, even though it was satisfied that the directions of the Single Judge dated 14.05.1998 holding that the petitioners were entitled to regularisation from the date of their initial appointment must be quashed. Obviously, the Court was aware that the recommendations of the UPSC were merely with regard to their suitability for regularisation, and that, by that time, the MCD itself had superseded its earlier decision vide its order dated 15.06.2007.

16. It is possible that most of the contentions that have been raised by the petitioner are due to the fact that he is not a qualified Advocate, and is clearly not sufficiently experienced in this field to understand the manner in which the judicial process operates. However, the fact is that the petitioner is very well educated. He is a qualified, practicing doctor; and despite repeated suggestions and observations of the Court during the course of this hearing, he has persisted on pressing every illusory aspect of the matter utilising simplistic reasoning that is more likely to be resorted to by inexperienced, untrained, laymen; while ignoring all suggestions by this Court, nonchalantly, and with disdain, as if they were utterly inconsequential. He took more than half an hour in this exercise; consequently, the petition, as well as CM 4077/2014, are dismissed with

costs of Rs.1 lakh.

17. Costs to be deposited within two weeks from today with the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers' Fund of Bar Council of Delhi.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J MARCH 03, 2014 dr