# DR. S.P. KAPOOR ETC v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. ETC - **Citation:** [1982] 1 S.C.R. 1043 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1981-11-02 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 1980 - **Bench:** S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-s-p-kapoor-etc-v-state-of-himachal-pradesh-ors-etc-8260 - **Pages:** 34 ## Headnote Central Health Service Rules 1963, Rules 7A and BA and Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules 1974, Rules 9(4), and IO(a)(iU)-Union territory of Himachal Pradesh-Health Department manned by officers of Central Health Service-Union Territory becoming a Stat~Formation of Himachal Pradesh Health Servic~- 01/icers exercising option to continue in the new Heal1h Service-Determination of seniority-basis-Not date of induction into Central Health Service-Only under Rule JO( a) (iii) of State Rules. Service Rule not providing category with which Roster to be startedGovernment direction supplementing the Rule that Roster be started with category of Specialists-Government action whether valid. A B c 0 Annual Confidential Report-Initiated by an officer who is junior and also an aspirant for promotion to higher post-Such confidential report whether validCons!deration by Departmental Promation Committee-Effect of. E Services and Dismissals-State Health Service-Officers holding posts on ad hoc basis from 1973-Seniority list finalised on November 2, 1979-Departm,n~ ta/ Promotion Committee constituted on November 3, 1979-Promotions made and orders of appointment issued on the same day-Post haste manner of selec~ tion and appointment-Effect of . The Central Health Service was constituted by the Central Government and the Central Health Service Rules 1963 came into force wilh effect from 15~5-1963. These Rules were amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules 1966. Before the Punjab Reorganisation Act came into force the State of Punjab had its own Health Service known as the PCMS with two grades, Grade J and Grade II. After the Punjab Reorganisation Act came into force, and the Central Health Service was formed, some persons belonging to the PCMS and some persons working as Medical Officers in hospitals run by Local Bodies were inducted into that Service after they had exercised their oplion to be inducted therein The petitioners and contesting employees-respondents in \'.'rit petition nos. 2 0f 1980 and 288 of 1979 filed in the High Court had been inducted into the Central Health Service after they had exercised their option. When the Himachal Pradesh Union Territory was in existence, its Health Department was manned by Officers of the Central. Health Service, but after Himachal Pradesh became a full fledged State, the H1!Dacba) Health Servic~ was constituted on 24.1.1974 . . . ' ' ' G H A B c D E F G H 1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] I S,C.R under the Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules which catne into force on 19.1.74. The members of the Central Health Service serving in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Union Territory were asked to exercise their option to continue in the new Himachal Pradesh Health Service. The writ petitioners and the contesting employees-respondents exercised their option to continue in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service. The Appellant in C. A. No. 2384 of 1980, who was one of the petitioners in writ petition No. 288 of 1979 contended before the High Court that his reversion from the post of Deputy Director of Health Services to which post he was appointed on a regular basis was void. The petitioner in writ petition No. 2 of 1980 claimed that the seniority list of Speci:ilists prepared by the State Government was contrary lo the rules and that the appointment of the appellant in C.A. No. 2104 of 1980 and of respondents 2 and 4 in writ petition 288 of 1979 as Deputy Directors of Health Services was contrary to the provisions of the 1974 Rules. It was contended that 1he appointments were also vitiated because : (D the Departn1ental Promotion Committee constituted for making appointment was not properly constituted because one of the members of the committee the Principal Secretary to the Ch;ef Minister was unauthorisedly inducted into the Committee in place of the Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, and (ii) that their confidential reports were written by an officer junior to t ## Text _Characters 0–39,816 of 84,485. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39816 for what follows._ • .. .... 1043 DR. S.P. KAPOOR ETC. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. ETC. November 2, 1981 [ S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] Central Health Service Rules 1963, Rules 7A and BA and Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules 1974, Rules 9(4), and IO(a)(iU)-Union territory of Himachal Pradesh-Health Department manned by officers of Central Health Service-Union Territory becoming a Stat~Formation of Himachal Pradesh Health Servic~- 01/icers exercising option to continue in the new Heal1h Service-Determination of seniority-basis-Not date of induction into Central Health Service-Only under Rule JO( a) (iii) of State Rules. Service Rule not providing category with which Roster to be startedGovernment direction supplementing the Rule that Roster be started with category of Specialists-Government action whether valid. A B c 0 Annual Confidential Report-Initiated by an officer who is junior and also an aspirant for promotion to higher post-Such confidential report whether validCons!deration by Departmental Promation Committee-Effect of. E Services and Dismissals-State Health Service-Officers holding posts on ad hoc basis from 1973-Seniority list finalised on November 2, 1979-Departm,n~ ta/ Promotion Committee constituted on November 3, 1979-Promotions made and orders of appointment issued on the same day-Post haste manner of selec~ tion and appointment-Effect of . The Central Health Service was constituted by the Central Government and the Central Health Service Rules 1963 came into force wilh effect from 15~5-1963. These Rules were amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules 1966. Before the Punjab Reorganisation Act came into force the State of Punjab had its own Health Service known as the PCMS with two grades, Grade J and Grade II. After the Punjab Reorganisation Act came into force, and the Central Health Service was formed, some persons belonging to the PCMS and some persons working as Medical Officers in hospitals run by Local Bodies were inducted into that Service after they had exercised their oplion to be inducted therein The petitioners and contesting employees-respondents in \'.'rit petition nos. 2 0f 1980 and 288 of 1979 filed in the High Court had been inducted into the Central Health Service after they had exercised their option. When the Himachal Pradesh Union Territory was in existence, its Health Department was manned by Officers of the Central. Health Service, but after Himachal Pradesh became a full fledged State, the H1!Dacba) Health Servic~ was constituted on 24.1.1974 . . . ' ' ' G H A B c D E F G H 1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] I S,C.R under the Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules which catne into force on 19.1.74. The members of the Central Health Service serving in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Union Territory were asked to exercise their option to continue in the new Himachal Pradesh Health Service. The writ petitioners and the contesting employees-respondents exercised their option to continue in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service. The Appellant in C. A. No. 2384 of 1980, who was one of the petitioners in writ petition No. 288 of 1979 contended before the High Court that his reversion from the post of Deputy Director of Health Services to which post he was appointed on a regular basis was void. The petitioner in writ petition No. 2 of 1980 claimed that the seniority list of Speci:ilists prepared by the State Government was contrary lo the rules and that the appointment of the appellant in C.A. No. 2104 of 1980 and of respondents 2 and 4 in writ petition 288 of 1979 as Deputy Directors of Health Services was contrary to the provisions of the 1974 Rules. It was contended that 1he appointments were also vitiated because : (D the Departn1ental Promotion Committee constituted for making appointment was not properly constituted because one of the members of the committee the Principal Secretary to the Ch;ef Minister was unauthorisedly inducted into the Committee in place of the Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, and (ii) that their confidential reports were written by an officer junior to them and who was an aspirant for promotion to the higher post. The appointments or the Director or Health Services and the two Deputy Directors having been made in haste immediately after the seniority list was issued rendered the appointments void. The petitioner in writ petition 2 of 1980 claimed that the inter se seniority between himself and the respondeats could not be disturbed at the time of absorption in the Hima:::hal Pradesh Health Services having regard to the Punjab Reorganisation Act and the protection given to the members of the Punjab Service. These two petitions were contested. It was contended by the State of Himachal Pradesh that the petitioners in W.P. No. 288 of 1979 were appointed as Deputy Directors of Health Setvices only on ad hoc basis, that the post is a selec~ tion post which cannot be claimed as of right by persons appointed on ad hoc basis by way of stop-gap arrangement. The incumbent to the post of Secretary, Health and Fan1ily Welfare being on leave at the relevant period, the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister was appointed to function in his place as Secre~ tary to Government in the Departn1ental Promotion Committee, the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee was perfectly valid. The annual confidential reports which were written by the junior officer who was working on ad hoc basis, were not the only reports taken into account by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The post of Director of Health Services was manned on an ad hoc basis. Ad hoc appointments were necessitated by the absence of the final seniority list which was prepared only on 2.11.1979 and since that impedi~ ment was over the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 3.11.1979 and orders of appointment to those selected by that Committee were issued on the san1e day. Specialists were officers possessing post-graduate qualifications while General Duty Officers were as a rule only graduates. The Rule making autho- - • S.P. KAPOOR v. HIMACHAL 1045 rity divided the higher posts equalJy amongst the officers of !he two categories A taking aII factors into consideration. Therefore, the claim for being considered to the post of Director of Health Services is wholly untenable having regard to Rule 9(3) of the Rules, which provides that only Deputy Directors should be considered for pron1otion to the post of Director of Health Services. On behalf of the Central Government it was contended that the Central Health Service was constituted wilh effect from 9 9.1966 and the seniority of the Medical Officers appointed to the service with effect from that date had been determined to be that officers appointed to a grade under rule 7 A of the Central Health Services Rules 1963 as amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966 will rank e11 bloc senior in that grade to those who may be appointed to that grade under rule 8A. The officers of the Punjab Government were appointed to the Central Health Service with effect from 1.11.1966 under rule SA. As these officers have come into the Central Health Service only after the initial constitution of that service was over, it was not possible to assign them seniority over the officers appointed at the initial constitution of the service. The Government of Himachal Pradesh having proposed to formulate their own Health Service and the Medical Officers who are to opt from the Central Health Service are to be included in that service, those officers were asked to exercise their option. Those officers who opted to join the proposed Himachal Pradesh Health Service were given the benefit of past continuous service while fixing their seniority in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and held (I) that the petitioners therein being appointed as Deputy Directors on ad hoc basis cannot claim a right to the post of Deputy Directors of Health Services or to seniority on the basis of ad hoc appointment though then can add the period of such appointment in the matter of experience for promotion and confirmation. (2) The Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister was appointed to function additionally as Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department as per office order dated 2.11.1979 and therefore the Departmental Promotion Committee had been pro. perly constituted. (3) Seniority has to be determined on the basis of the date of induction into the Central Health Service and not on the basis of the earlier service. Allowing the appeal to this Court, HELD : 1. The High Court erred in holding that the inter se seniority has to be determined only on the basis of the date of induction into the Central Health Service and not with reference' to Rule 10(a)(iii) of the Rules. Inter se seniority has to be determined only in accordance with Rule IO(a)(iii) of the Rules and Dr. S.P. Kapoor would be senior to Dr. R.M. Bali who in turn would rank senior to Dr. Jiwan Lal. L1072 H, 1073 B] Jn the instant case the Central Government was under an obligation to see that in fairness and equity the seniority of officers drafted into the newly formed 8 c D E F G State from the integrating States is properly fixed and that obligation has been properly discharged by the Central Government. Dr. S. P. Kapoor had been H appointed to the PCMS (Grade I) post on 29.11965 and he was inducted into the Specialist Grade in the Cl!ntra\ H~alth Service with efiect from 1.11.1966 while 1046 SUPREME COURt kEl'ORtS [l 982J I s.c.R. A Dr. R.M. Bali and Dr. Jiwan Lal who were in the Central Health Service on the the date of its constitution on 9.9.1966 had been taken in. the Specialists Grade and G.D.O. Grade I respectiveJy under the Central Health Service with effect only from 9.9.1968. [lo72:F, 1068 CJ Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, (1968] I SCR 185, held inapplicable. B N. Subba Rao etc. v. Union of India and Ors., (1973] I SCR 945 and C.P. a D E F G H Damodaran Nayar and P.S. Menon v. State of Kera/a and others, (1974] 2 SCR S67, referred to. 2. The annual confidential reports were initiated by an officer not only junior, but also an aspirant for promotion to the higher post, and, therefore, such confidential reports should not have been taken into consideration for further promotion. (1073 CJ In the instant case it would not have been fair for the Departmental Promotion Committee to take into account the annual confidential reports made by Dr. Grover though they might have been revised by the higher authorities.[1073F] 3. The po~t-haste manner in which the Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting was held on 3.11.1979 suggests that some higher~up was interested in pushing through the matter hastily when the regular Secretary, Health and Family Welfare was on leave. The matter is therefore required to be considered afresh. (1075 B] In the instant case the Director of Health Services and Deputy Ditector of Health Services were holding the posts on ad hoc basis from the year 1973. The final seniority list was prepared only on 2.11.1979 and the Departmental Promo. tion Committee was constituted on 3.11.1979. The Joint Secretary, Personnel Department had written the letter dated 3.11.1979 requesting the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister who was appointed additionally as Secretary of Health and Family Welfare to attend the Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting at 3.00 p.m. on that day. There is room for suspecting the reason why the whole thing was completed in haste on 3.Jl.1979 after the pr.:paration of the final seniority list on 2.1 J .1979. The matter was not such as could not have been put off by a few days. Such rush is not usual is in any State Government. (1074 C-D. 1075 A] 4. The High Court was right in finding that the Specialists had an advan· tage for their category starting the roster by the senior-n1ost of the Specialists having put in more number of years of qualifying service than the HPHS (Grade l) Officers and that the Government was right in getting the roster started with Specialists instead of HPHS (Grade I) Officers. [1076 B-C] Jn the instant case as Rule 9(4) did not provide the category with which the roster may be started whether with HPHS (Grade I) Officers or Specialists, difficulty arose. The Government, therefore, stepped in and supplemented the Rule by directing that the roster may be started with the category of Specialists keeping in view che length of qualifying service in each of the two grades, namely Specialists and HPHS {Grade I) Officers. This tbey were entitled to by Rule 21. (1075 H, 1076 A] - • • .. • S.P. KAPOOR v. lllMACHAL Waradarajan J.) 1047 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 1980. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 30th July, 1980 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Simla in C.W.P. No. 2 of 1980. WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2384 OF 1980 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 30th July, 1980 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Simla in C. W.P. No. 288 of 1979. T.U. Mehta, S.K. Sabharwal. A. P. Mohanty and C.P. Pandey for the Appellant m C. A. No. 2104/80 & for Respondent 2 in C.A. No. 2384 of 1980. G.L. Songhi, Vineet Kuma'I- and Ashok Kaul for the Appellant in C.A. No. 2384 of 1980. M.M. Abdul Khader and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent : State V.M. Tarkunde and C.M. NaJ ar for Respondent No. 5 in C.A. No. 2104 of 1980 . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V ARADARAJAN, J. These appeals by special leave are against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court rendered in Writ Petitions Nos. 2 of 1980 and 288 of 1979. They were heard together by us in view of this Court's Order dated 6.11.1980. Writ Petition No. 288 of 1979 was filed by Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs.) Damyanti Kapur against the State of Himachal Pradesh, Dr. S.P. Kapoor, Dr. R.M. Bali and Dr. K. Pandeya. Writ Petition No. 2 of 1980 was filed by Dr. R.M. Bali against the State of Himachal Pradesh· and eight others including Dr. Jiwan Lal, Dr. (Mrs.) Damyanti Kapur, Dr. S.P. KapoN and Dr. K. Pandeya, who were respondents Nos. 8, 9, 6 and 7 respectively in the Writ Petition. Dr. S.P. Kapoor, 1he appellant in C.A. No. 2104 of 1980 is the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 288 of 1979 and 6th respondent in W.P. No. 2 of 1980. Dr. Jiwan Lal, A B c D E F G H 1048 stJi>Rllldll COURT RBPOR ts [198ij l s.c.k. A the appellant in C.A. No. 2384 of 1980 is the first prtitionet in W.P. B c D E F G H No. 288 of 1979 and 8th respondent in W. P. No. 2 of 1980. Writ Petition No. 288 of 1979 challenged the reversion of Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs.) Damyanti Kapur, the petitioners therein, from the post of Deputy Directors of Health Services, as illegal and violative of the conditions of service as also the provisions of the Constitution of India. In Writ Petition No. 2 of 1980 Dr. R.M. Bali prayed for quashing the seniority of specialists indicated in the Office Memo dated 2.1I.I979 and Annexure PX- I containing the list and for assignment of Serial No. I in the seniority list to him. Dr. R.M. Bali prayed for certain other reliefs also including declaration of the appointment of Dr. S.P. Kapoor as Director of Health Services as null and void and for his case being considered for appointment to that post on the basis of the seniority prayed for in his Writ Petition. The case of Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs.) Damyanti Kapur, the Writ Petitioners in W.P. No. 288 of 1979, was that they were appointed as Deputy Directors of Health Services on a regular basis. The post of Deputy Director, Health Services was held by Dr. Ji wan Lal for 4! years and by Dr. (Mrs.) Damyanti Kapur for about 3! years. The appointment of Dr. S.P. Kapoor, the appellant in C.A. No. 2104 of 1980 and Dr. R.M. Bali and Dr. K. Pandeya (respondents 2 and 4 in W.P. No. 288 of 1979) as Deputy Directors of Health Services, is contrary to the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Health Services Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). They were appointed in disregard of the rights of Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs.) Damyanti Kapur. The Departmental Promotion Committee constituted for making the appointment was not properly constituted as· one of the members of the Committee, namely, the Principal Secretary to the then Chief Minister was unauthorisedly inducted into the Committee in the place of the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, the proceedings of the Committee are vitiated. The annual confidential reports of the petitioners Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs.) Damyanti Kapur were initiated by an officer who was not only junior to them but also an aspirant f0r promotion to the higher post along with them. Therefore, those confidential reports should not have been taken into consideration for further promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The appointment of Dr. S.P. Kapoor, the appellant in CA. No. 2104 of 1980, Dr. R.M. Bali and Dr. K. Pandeya, res- - • ·• '> ... - • .. ,_ \ S.P. KAPOOR v. HIMACHAL (Varadarajan, J.) 1049 pondents 2 and 4 in that Writ Petition was made in haste on 3.11.1979 immediately after the final seniority list was issued on 2.11.1979. The appointment of Dr. S.P. Kapoor, the second respondent in W.P. No. 288 of 1979 and appellant in C.A. No. :!104 of 1980 as Director of Health Services on the same day is illegal as he did not satisfy the conditions prescribed in the Rules and he did not have even the requisite qualifying service. Further the post of Director of Health Services must have been filled up from amongst the Health Services Grade-I officers and not from amongst Specialists. The reversion of Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs.) Damyanti Kapur from the posts of Deputy Directors is illegal and violative of the conditions of their service as also the provisions of the Constitution of lne'.ia. The case of Dr. R.M. Bali, the petitioner in W.P. No. 2 of 1980 was that he was appointed as T.B. Officer, T.B. Sanatorium, Mandodhar, a Gazetted Class II post, with effect from 9.4.1955 and he continued to work as such till 28.5. I 962. He was, thereafter, appointed as Superintendent in that Sanatorium, a Class I post, and after joining the post he was selected for appointment on a regular basis through the Public Service Commission and he was confirmed in that post, categorized as Category 'D' post and Class I post in the Central Health Services, in 1966. The Medical and Health Department of Himachal Pradesh Government appointed him as Director of Health (T.B.), a Category 'D' post by a Notification dated 1.7.1963. He was inducted into the Central Health Services with effect from 9.9.1966 and included in the initial constitution of that Service and confirmed in that Service on 9.9.1968. But Dr. Grover, who has since retired, and Dr. S.P. Kapoor, who were respondents 5 and 6 respectively in Writ Petition No. 2 of i980, were appointed merely on a temporary basis to the Central Health Service with effect from l .11.1966. The inter se seniority of Dr. R.M. Bali, the petitioner in W. P. N,,. 2 of 1980 and Dr. Grover and S.P. Kapoor in the Central Health Services (Specialists' Grade) had to be preserved and could not be disturbed at the time of absorption in the Himachal Pradesh Health Services having regard to the Punjab Reorganisation Act and the protection given to the members of the Punjab Service. In these circumstances, Dr. R.M. Bali prayed for quashing of the seniority list of the cadre of Specialists indicated in the Office Memorandum dated 2. \I. \979 (Annexure PX-I containing in the list) and assigning to him Serial No. I in the seniority list. He also prayed for other reliefs including declaration of the appointment of Qr. s.P. Kapoor as Qirector of l:jealth Services 11s mill 11nc! A B c D F G H 1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] I s.c.R. A void and for his appointment to that post on the basis of the revised seniority claimed by him. B c D E F c The contention of the Himachal Pradesh Government, the first respondent in W.P. No. 288 of 1979 was that Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs) Damyanti Kapoor were appointed as Deputy Directors of Health Services on ad hoc basis. The Deputy Director's post is a selection post which cannot be claimed as of right by persons apointed on ad hoc basis by way of stop-gap arrangement. The incumbent to the post of Secretary to Government, Health and Family welfare was on leave from the 3rd to 9th November, 1979 and the Principal Secretary to the then Chief Minister was appointed to function in his place as Secretary to Government in the Departmental Promotion Committee by order dated 3.11.1979. The constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee was, therefore, perfectly valid. The annual confidential reports written by Dr. Grover, who was working on ad hoc basis, were not the only reports taken into account by the Departmental Promotion Committee. That Committee did not take into account the reports of Dr. J. C. Sharma about the work and conduct of Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs.) Damyanti Kapur. The post of Director of Health Servic.s was manned on an ad hoc basis since the retirement of Dr. Krishan Swarup in December 1973. The posts of Deputy Director also were manned on an ad hoc basis. These ad hoc appointments were necessitated by the absence of the final seniority list which was prepared only on 2.11.1979 and since that impediment was over on 2. l l.19 79. the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 3.11.1979 and orders of appointment to those selected by that Committee on that date were issued on the same day. The promptness in making the regular appointments was necessitated by the intention to make the regular appointment as quickly as possible after the preparation of the final seniority list on 2.11.1979. Specialists are necessarily officers pJssessing post-graduate qualifications while G.D.Os. Class I are, as a rule, only graduates. Therefore, the Rule making authority divided the higher posts equally amongst the Officers of the two categories taking all factors into consideration. The appointment of Dr. S. P. Kapoor, the second respondent in W.P. No. 288 of 1979 as Director of Helth Services is valid. Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs.) Damyanti Kapur were not Deputy Directors of Health Services on the date of selection of Dr. S.P. Kapoor as Director of Health Services and, theref re, their claim for being considered for promotion to that post is wholly μntenal>Je having regard to Rule 9(3) of the Rules, according to - .. - • .. S.P. KAPOOR v. HIMACHAL (Vuradarajan, J.) 1051 which only Deputy Directors could be considered for promotion to A the post of Director of Health Services. The contention of the Hi machal Pradesh Government, the first respondent in W.P. 2 of 1980 was that the post of Superintendent, T.B. Sanatorium held by Dr. R.M. Bali, the petitioner in that Petition, was a junior Class I post until he was appointed to the Specialist grade of the Central Health Services with effect from 9.9.1966. Dr. Grover and Dr. S.P. Kapoor, respondents 5 and 6 respectively in W.P. No. 2 of 1980 were appointed to the Specialists' grade in the Central Health Services with effect from 1.11.1966 though the Central Government kept the question of seniority open. Dr. R.M. Bali exercised his option to join the Himachal Pradesh Health Service after a copy of the Rules was supplied to him. The final sen iority of Dr. R.M. Bali and others was fixed under the provisions of the Rule issued on 10.1.1974. Seniority assigned to Dr. R.M. Bali is strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 (a) (iii) of the Rules. The words "whichever is earlier" which occurred in the original Rule 10 (a)(i) and 10 (a)(iii) were deleted by the Amendment Rules, 1966. The claim of Dr. R.M. Bali for seniority on the basis of his ad hoc appointment is not tenable . The Central Government and Dr. S.P. Kapoor, respondents 2 and 6 in W.P. No. 2 of 1980 had also filed counter-affidavits oppos· ing the Writ Petition. In the Central Government's counter-affidavit it is stated that Dr. R.M. Bali has been in the Specialist's grade only from 9.9.1966 and that Dr. Grover and Dr. S.P. Kapoor were appointed to the Specialists' grade on 1.11.1966 leaving the question of seniority open. In the counter-affidavit of Dr. S.P. Kapoor reference is made to Government of India's letter dated 9.7.1971 which deals with the fixation of seniority of medical officers of the Punjab Government absorbed in the Central Health Services in the Himachal Pradesh Un ion Territory and states as follows. ; "The Central Health Services was constituted with effect from 9.9.1966 and the seniority of Medical Officers appointed to the Service with effect from that date has been determined in accordance with the principles laid down in this Ministry's letter dated 27.7.1967. In accordance with sub· para 1 of this memoranda Officers appointed to a grade of the Central Health Services under Rule 7 A of the Central Health Services Rules, as amended by the Central Health Sevices Amendment Rules, 1966, will rank en bloc senior B c D E F G B A B c D E F G H 1052 SU!'RfML cu\JRT l