Calcutta HC Dismisses Union of India's Plea Against Regularisation of Ad Hoc Doctor From Date of Initial Appointment

A Division Bench held that the Union of India, as a model employer, cannot treat one ad hoc doctor differently when all 25 were assessed and recommended by UPSC on identical terms.

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that directed the regularisation of Dr. Sanjoy Bhattacharyya as a Medical Officer in the Central Health Service with effect from 30 August 1996 — the date of his initial ad hoc appointment. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee found that the respondent was identically situated to 24 other ad hoc doctors who had already been regularised from their respective initial appointment dates, and that no material had been placed before the court to distinguish his case. The Union's argument that earlier Tribunal orders operated strictly in personam was rejected outright.

The Dispute Before the Court

The present litigation has its roots in proceedings that began in the late 1990s. A group of doctors employed on an ad hoc basis between 1994 and 1997 under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare filed Original Application No. 474/98 before the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. That application was disposed of on 10 April 2002. The Union of India challenged the outcome before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed the writ petition on 23 February 2010.

Following that dismissal, the Department of Legal Affairs within the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare moved a proposal to the Union Public Service Commission for regularisation of the services of the ad hoc doctors. The UPSC assessed the suitability of the applicants on the basis of their Annual Confidential Reports, bio-data and performance during a personal talk, and found all of them fit for appointment to the grade of Medical Officer in the General Duty Medical Officer Sub-cadre of the Central Health Service.

Acting on the UPSC's recommendations, a memo dated 4 February 2016 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, conveyed that the President had been pleased to appoint the 25 ad hoc doctors as Medical Officers with effect from 18 September 2014. Dr. Bhattacharyya was among the 25 named in that list.

Separately, one of the 25 doctors, Dr. N. Swarnalatha, filed an original application before the Tribunal at Hyderabad claiming regularisation from her date of initial appointment. The Tribunal allowed her application on 26 July 2007. The Union of India's writ petition against that order was dismissed on 1 August 2022, and a subsequent Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 6 October 2023.

The Tribunal's Direction and the Challenge

Dr. Bhattacharyya then filed Original Application No. 350/00536/2024 before the Tribunal, seeking regularisation from his initial date of appointment. By an order dated 21 March 2025, the Tribunal allowed the application. It directed the Union of India to regularise his appointment with effect from 30 August 1996 and to extend all consequential benefits within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal's reasoning was that Dr. Bhattacharyya was similarly situated to the applicants in OA No. 285/2016 of the Hyderabad Bench and OA No. 200/1092/2017 of the Jabalpur Bench, in which regularisation from the date of initial appointment had already been ordered. Following what it described as “settled law as quoted above,” the Tribunal directed regularisation accordingly.

Aggrieved, the Union of India and its functionaries filed WPCT 249 of 2025 before the Calcutta High Court. Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, appearing for the petitioners, advanced two principal arguments. First, that the earlier Tribunal orders had been complied with strictly on an in personam basis and could not be treated as precedent. Second, that because Dr. Bhattacharyya's initial appointment was ad hoc and not in conformity with the prescribed recruitment rules, regularisation ought to be prospective and not retrospective. He relied on a memo dated 19 May 2026 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, and on the Supreme Court's judgment in Registrar General of India and Another v. V. Thippa Setty and Others, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 690, as well as the Bombay High Court's decision in Arjun Vasant Rane and Others v. Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department and another, reported in 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 1041. He submitted that regularisation prospectively was the correct course because retrospective regularisation risked upsetting seniorities and because deficiencies in ad hoc service could not be relaxed.

Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, appearing for Dr. Bhattacharyya, contested this position. He drew the court's attention to a memo dated 23 August 2020 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which stated that the seniority of the 25 doctors was subject to the outcome of WP No. 3827/2019 pending before the Telangana High Court. He pointed out that the original application arising from that matter had since been disposed of and that neither the subsequent writ petition nor the SLP filed by the Union of India had resulted in any interference with the Tribunal's directions.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench examined the memo dated 4 February 2016 carefully. It found that the UPSC had assessed all 25 ad hoc doctors on the same set of criteria — their ACRs, bio-data and performance during the personal talk — and had found each of them fit for regular appointment. The memo dated 11 February 2016 reflected UPSC's consolidated recommendation in favour of all 25 doctors, on the basis of which all of them were appointed.

The court observed that the cases of all 25 doctors were “inextricably bound” given this common assessment and recommendation process. No material had been placed before the court to show that Dr. Bhattacharyya was differently situated from the remaining 24 doctors who had already been regularised from their respective dates of initial appointment.

On the Union's central contention that the earlier Tribunal orders operated in personam, the Bench was unequivocal. It found the argument unacceptable precisely because the factual basis of each of the 25 doctors' cases was the same: a single UPSC exercise, a single recommendation list, and a single government memo giving effect to that recommendation. Where the underlying facts are identical, the characterisation of a prior order as in personam cannot justify withholding the same benefit from a person who is indistinguishable on the relevant facts.

The court also held that the judgments cited by the petitioners — V. Thippa Setty and Arjun Vasant Rane — were distinguishable on facts and did not govern the present situation. Beyond that factual distinction, the Bench invoked a broader principle: the Union of India, as a model employer, cannot violate the fundamental concept of equality in law and equal treatment in matters of employment.

Outcome

The writ petition, WPCT 249 of 2025, was dismissed. The Division Bench declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order dated 21 March 2025, which requires the Union of India to regularise Dr. Bhattacharyya's appointment with effect from 30 August 1996 and to extend all consequential benefits within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal's order. No order as to costs was made.