{"id":19594,"date":"1998-05-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-05-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998"},"modified":"2016-09-15T20:37:37","modified_gmt":"2016-09-15T15:07:37","slug":"dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 8 May, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 8 May, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Srinivasan<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, M. Srinivasan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDR. ANURADHA BODI & ORS. ETC. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/05\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS.C. AGRAWAL, M. SRINIVASAN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nSRINIVASAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
     There are nine petitioners in the earlier writ petition
\nand one\t petitioner in\tthe later  writ petition.  They were
\nappointed by  the first\t respondent as\tGeneral Duty Medical
\nOfficer Grade II between 1982 and 1985. The first petitioner
\nin the Civil Writ Petition 60 of 1994 and petitioner in Writ
\nPetition No. 8 of 1997 were appointed in 1982. Petitioners 2
\nand 3  in the earlier writ petition were appointed din 1083.
\nPetitioners  4\t and  5\t  were\tappointed  in  1984  whereas
\npetitioners   6 to  9 were  appointed in  1985. It is not in
\ndispute that  all of  them were\t appointed on  purely ad hoc
\nbasis on  the same  terms and conditions. In the appointment
\norders, Clause 1 stated that the appointment would be purely
\non an ad hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement for a period of
\nsix months  or till  such time\tthe posts  were filled up on
\nregular basis  through Union  Public Service Commission (for
\nshort `UPSE’)  or till further orders whichever was earlier.
\nClause 2  provided that\t the ad\t hoc appointments  could  be
\nterminated at  any time\t by the\t competent authority without
\nassigning any reason whatsoever and without giving any prior
\nnotice. According  to Clause  3, the  appointment  will\t not
\nconfer\t any   right   whatever\t  on   the   appointee\t for
\nregular\/permanent appointment. Under Clause 9 the appointees
\nwere advised  for regular  appointment to  pass the U.P.S.C.
\nexamination in normal course in the direct competition.\n<\/p>\n
2.   There is  a specific  averment in the counter-affidavit
\nfiled by  the  first  respondent  that\tinspite\t of  several
\nopportunities available\t to the\t petitioners, they preferred
\nnot to\tapply to  the  UPSC for direct competition entitling
\nthem to\t be appointed on regular basis. The petitioners have
\nnot filed any rejoinder controverting the same.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The Recruitment  Rules,  called  “The  Delhi  Municipal
\nCorporation Health  Service  Recruitment  Regulation,  1982”
\n(herein after  referred to  as `the Rules’) were made by the
\nMunicipal Corporation of Delhi under Section 98 of the Delhi
\nMunicipal  Corporation\t Act,  1957   and   notified   under
\nNotification No. R-9\/38\/82-LSG\/5686 dated 6.8.82. As per the
\nrules, the  posts in  question were  to be filled up through
\nthe U.P.S.C.  Admittedly, the  petitioners were not selected
\nthrough U.P.S.C.  but according to the petitioners they were
\nselected by a high-profile Selection Committee consisting of
\nDeputy Commissioner  and  Director  (Personnel)\t of  M.C.D.,
\nMedical Superintendent\tof the\thospital concerned  and\t two
\nspecialists  in\t  Clinical  Medicine   from   two   renowned
\nhospitals.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Though  the   appointments\t of   the  petitioners\twere
\ninitially for  a period\t of  six  months,  they\t were  being
\ncontinued periodically\tby subsequent  orders issued  by the
\nfirst respondent.  One such order has been filed as a sample
\nby the\tpetitioners bearing  dated 15.2.90.  The preamble to
\nthe order reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “The   Chief    Secretary,\t   Delhi
\n     Administration,  exercising  powers
\n     of the  Corporation  under\t Section
\n     490 (2)(b)\t of the D.M.C. Act, 1957
\n     vide  Decision   No.   211\/CW\/Corp.\n<\/p>\n
     dated  2.2.1990  has  approved  the
\n     continued\tad  hoc\t appointment  of
\n     following GDMOs Grade II in the pay
\n     scale of  Rs,  2200-4000  plus  the
\n     usual allowances  with effect  from
\n     13.7.1989 for  a period of one year
\n     or till  such time\t the  posts  are
\n     filled   up   on\tregular\t  basis,
\n     whichever is earlier”\n<\/p>\n
5.   By a  similar order dated 24.7.1990 the services of the
\npetitioners were  extended for\ta period  of one  year\twith
\neffect\tfrom   13.7.1990.  The\t petitioners   were   making
\nrepresentations to  regularise their  services even  without
\nappearing before the U.P.S.C. but in vain.\n<\/p>\n
6.   They filled a writ petition in this Court under Article
\n32 of  the Constitution\t in Writ  Petition (Civil) No. 47 of
\n1991 praying  that  their  services  should  be\t treated  as
\nregular from  the respective  dates of\ttheir induction into
\nthe service  and to  consider them for promotion to Grade I,
\nthat  their   initial  appointment  be\ttreated\t as  regular
\nappointment with  effect from the date of their induction of
\ntheir service  and to grant them consequential seniority, to
\ndeclare that the Corporation should absorb them first before
\noffering the  existing vacancies  to the  new  recruits\t who
\nmight be  selected in  pursuance  of  the  combined  Medical
\nService Examination  1991 and  to restrain  the\t respondents
\nfrom terminating the services of the petitioners pending the
\ndisposal of  the petition. The said petition was disposed of
\nvide order dated 29.7.1991 in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
     “We  are\tinformed  that\tall  the
\n     petitioners have  been  called  for
\n     interview by  Union Public\t Service
\n     Commission.  In  view  of\tthis  no
\n     further  relief   requires\t to   be
\n     granted  in   the\t petition.   The
\n     petitioners certainly can not claim
\n     that  they\t  are  entitled\t  to  be
\n     regularised even  though  they  are
\n     not selected.  The Writ Petition is
\n     dismissed as  infructuous.\t If  the
\n     petitioners have  not been selected
\n     and they have any grievance in that
\n     connection with  the selection  the
\n     remedy for them is to file separate
\n     proceedings”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.   Thereafter,  the\tpetitioners  appeared\tbefore\t the
\nU.P.S.C.  and\twere  selected.\t  Consequently,\t the   first
\nrespondent passed  an  order  on  17.8.1992  appointing\t the
\npetitioners on\tregular basis  to the  grade of\t G.D.M.O. II
\nwith  effect  from  27.6.91,  the  date\t when  the  U.P.S.C.
\nrecommended the appointment of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The petitioners  are aggrieved  by the  date from which
\nthey  are   appointed  on  regular  basis  namely,  27.6.91.
\nAccording  to\tthe  petitioners  they\tshould\t  have\tbeen
\nappointed on  regular basis  with effect  from\tthe  initial
\ndates of appointment respectively. Hence they have filed the
\npresent writ  petition with prayers for declaration that the
\nrespondents should  treat them\tas holding  their respective
\nposts regularly\t from the  respective dates of their initial
\nappointments which  stand now  regularised by  U.P.S.C.\t and
\ngrant them  their due  seniority with consequential benefits
\nsuch as\t promotion to higher grade notwithstanding the order
\ndated 17.8.92  which may  be suitably  amended,\t declaration
\nthat the  action of  the respondents in not treating them as
\nregular employees of the Corporation since the date of their
\ninitial appointment  is unwarranted, arbitrary and violative
\nof  Articles   14  and\t 16  of\t the  Constitution  and\t for
\ndeclaration that  the petitioners are entitled to be treated
\nas having  been appointed  on regular basis as G.D.M.Os from
\nthe date  of respective initial appointment as has been done
\nin the case of other employees vide order dated 31.12.86.\n<\/p>\n
9.   A preliminary  objection  was  raised  by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel for  first the\trespondent that the writ petition is
\nnot maintainable  in as much as the claim for regularisation
\nhas been  negatived by\tthis Court  in Writ Petition (Civil)
\nNo. 47 of 1991 the order in which has already been extracted
\nby us.\tThough the  prayers in\tthe two\t writ petitions\t are
\nalmost the  same and  the petitioners are seeking once again
\nto  claim   that  their\t  initial  appointments\t  should  be
\nconsidered to be on regular basis. This writ petition has to
\nbe considered  in so  far  as  it  relates  to\tquestion  of
\nseniority. In  view of\tthe  order  dated  27.9.91  in\tWrit
\nPetition 47  of 1991  the petitioners cannot claim that they
\nare  entitled\tto  be\ttreated\t as  having  been  regularly
\nappointed  with\t effect\t from  the  date  of  their  initial
\nappointment. But the petitioners are placing reliance on the
\njudgment of  the Constitution  Bench of this Court in Direct
\nRecruit Class  II Engineering  Officers’ Association  Versus
\nState of  Maharashtra &\t Ors .\t(1990) 2  S.C.C. 715 and are
\ncontending that\t their services\t from the  dates of  initial
\nappointment till the date of regularisation have to be taken
\ninto consideration  for purposes  of fixing their seniority.
\nIn fact\t on an\tearlier occasion when this case was heard on
\n27.10.94 the  Court took  note of  the said  contention\t and
\ndirected the  impleadment  of  persons\twho  were  regularly
\nappointed after\t selection  by\tthe  U.P.S.C.  and  were  in
\nservice during\tthe period  1982 to  1991. Thus\t the regular
\nappointees have been impleaded as respondents in the present
\ncase. Hence,  the question  which has  to be  considered  is
\nwhether the  petitioners are  entitled to get any benefit on
\nthe basis of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench
\nin the Direct Recruit case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
10.  The propositions laid down by the Constitution Bench in
\nthe aforesaid  case are\t set out  in  Paragraph\t 47  of\t the
\njudgment. We are concerned with only Conclusions (A) and (B)
\nwhich read as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     (A)  Once an incumbent is appointed
\n     to a  post according  to rule,  his
\n     seniority has  to be  counted  from
\n     the date of his appointment and not
\n     according\tto   the  date\t of  his
\n     confirmation. The\tcorollary of the
\n     above  rule   is  that   where  the
\n     initial appointment  is only ad hoc
\n     and not according to rules and made
\n     as\t a  stop  gap  arrangement,  the
\n     officiation in such posts cannot be
\n     taken into\t account for considering
\n     the seniority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (B) If  the initial  appointment is
\n     not made by following the procedure
\n     laid  down\t  by   the   rules   but
\n     appointed\tcontinues  in  the  post
\n     uninterruptedly\t  till\t     the
\n     regularisation of\this  service  in
\n     accordance\t with\tthe  rules,  the
\n     period of\tofficiating service will
\n     be counted”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.  These two\tclauses have been explained in a  subsequent
\njudgment in State of West Bengal and others etc. etc. versus
\nAghore Nath  Dey and  others etc.  etc. (1993)\t3 S.C.C. 371
\nThe relevant passages in the said judgment read as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “21.     We  shall\t now  deal  with
\n     conclusions  (A)  and  (B)\t of  the
\n     constitution    bench     in    the
\n     Maharashtra Engineers  case  quoted
\n     above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     22.   There can  be no  doubt  that
\n     these two\tconclusions have  to  be
\n     read harmoniously,\t and  conclusion
\n     (B) cannot\t cover cases  which  are
\n     expressly\texcluded  by  conclusion
\n     (A). We may, therefore, first refer
\n     to\t conclusion  from  the\tdate  of
\n     initial   appointment    and    not
\n     according\t to    the    date    of
\n     confirmation, the\tincumbent of the
\n     post has  to be initially appointed
\n     `according to rules’. The corollary
\n     set out in conclusion (A), then is,
\n     that `where the initial appointment
\n     is only ad hoc and not according to
\n     rules  and\t  made\tas   a\t stopgap
\n     arrangement,  the\t officiation  in
\n     such  posts   cannot  betaken  into
\n     account   for    considering    the
\n     seniority’. Thus,\tthe corollary in
\n     conclusion (A)  expressly\texcludes
\n     the category  of  cases  where  the
\n     initial appointment  is only ad hoc
\n     and not  according to  rules, being
\n     made only as a stopgap arrangement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The case  of the  writ  petitioners
\n     squarely\t falls\t  within    this
\n     corollary in  conclusion (A), which
\n     says that\tthe officiation\t in such
\n     posts cannot  be taken into account
\n     for counting the seniority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     23.   This\t   being   the\t obvious
\n     inference from  conclusion (A), the
\n     question  is  whether  the\t present
\n     case   can\t   also\t  fall\t  within
\n     conclusion\t (B)  which  deals  with
\n     cases   in\t   which    period    of
\n     officiating service will be counted
\n     for seniority.  We\t have  no  doubt
\n     that conclusion (B) cannot include,
\n     within its ambit, those cases which
\n     are  expressly   covered\tby   the
\n     corollary in  conclusion (A), since
\n     the two  conclusions cannot be read
\n     in conflict with each other.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     24. The  question, therefore, is of
\n     the category which would be covered
\n     by\t  conclusion\t(B)    excluding
\n     therefrom the  cases covered by the
\n     corollary in conclusion (A).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     25. In  out opinion, the conclusion
\n     (B) was  added to cover a different
\n     kind  of\tsituation,  wherein  the
\n     appointments are otherwise regular,
\n     except  for   the\t deficiency   of
\n     certain   procedural   requirements
\n     laid down\tby the\trules.\tThis  is
\n     clear from the opening words of the
\n     conclusion\t (B),  namely,\t`if  the
\n     initial appointment  is not made by
\n     following the  procedure laid  down
\n     by\t the   `rules’\tand  the  latter
\n     expression `till the regularisation
\n     of his  service in\t accordance with
\n     the  rules’.   We\tread  conclusion
\n     (BH), and\tit must\t be so\tread  to
\n     reconcile with  conclusion (A),  to
\n     cover the\tcases where  the initial
\n     appointment  is   made  against  an
\n     existing vacancy,\tnot limited to a
\n     fixed period  of time or purpose by
\n     the appointment  order itself,  and
\n     is made  subject to  the deficiency
\n     in\t the   procedural   requirements
\n     prescribed\t  by   the   rules   for
\n     adjudging\t suitability\tof   the
\n     appointment on  the date of initial
\n     appointment in such cases. Decision
\n     about    the    nature    of    the
\n     appointment,    for     determining
\n     whether it\t falls in this category,
\n     has to  be made on the basis of the
\n     terms of  the  initial  appointment
\n     itself and\t the provisions\t in  the
\n     rules.   In    such   cases,    the
\n     deficiency\t  in\tthe   procedural
\n     requirements laid down by the rules
\n     has  to   be  cured  at  the  first
\n     available opportunity,  without any
\n     default of\t the employee,\tand  the
\n     appointee must continue in the post
\n     uninterruptedly\t  till\t     the
\n     regularisation of\this service,  in
\n     accordance with  the rules. In such
\n     cases,  the  appointee  is\t not  to
\n     blame for\tthe  deficiency\t in  the
\n     procedural requirements  under  the
\n     rules at  the time\t of his\t initial
\n     appointment,  and\tthe  appointment
\n     not  being\t  limited  to\ta  fixed
\n     remaining\tprocedural  requirements
\n     of the rules being fulfilled at the
\n     earliest.\t In   such   cases   all
\n     appointee is  not to  blame for the
\n     initial   appointment,    and   the
\n     appointment not  being limited to a
\n     fixed period of time is intended to
\n     be regular\t appointment, subject to
\n     the      remaining\t      procedural
\n     requirements  of  the  rules  being
\n     fulfilled at  the earliest. In such
\n     cases also,  if there  be any delay
\n     in curing the defects on account of
\n     any fault\tof  the\t appointee,  the
\n     appointee would  not get  the  full
\n     benefit of\t the earlier  period  on
\n     account of his default, the benefit
\n     being confined  only to  the period
\n     for which\the is not to blame. This
\n     category of cases is different from
\n     those covered  by the  corollary in
\n     conclusion\t (A)  which  relates  to
\n     appointment only on ad hoc basis as
\n     a\tstopgap\t  arrangement  and   not
\n     according to rules”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.  If the  facts of  these two  cases are  analysed in the
\nlight of  the aforesaid\t decisions, there  can be  no  doubt
\nwhatever that  the petitioners\tfall within the corollary in
\nConclusion (A).\t The orders  of appointment  issued  to\t the
\npetitioners are\t very specific\tin their  terms. Though\t the
\nRecruitment  Rules   came  into\t  force\t  on   6.8.82,\t the
\nappointments were  not made  in accordance  therewith.\tThey
\nwere ad\t hoc and  made as a stop gap arrangement. The orders
\nthemselves  indicated\tthat  for  the\tpurpose\t of  regular
\nappointment the\t petitioners were bound to pass the U.P.S.C.
\nexamination in\tnormal course  in  the\tdirect\tcompetition.
\nHence the  petitioners will  not fail under the main part of
\nConclusion (A) or Conclusion (B) as contended by the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
13.  A strange\tcontention has\tbeen urged  by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel for  the petitioners  by referring  to Section 96 of
\nthe Delhi  Municipal Corporation  Act. Under that Section no
\nappointment to\tany category  A post  shall be\tmade  except
\nafter consultation  with the  U.P.S.C. but under the proviso
\nno such\t consultation shall  be necessary  in regard  to the
\nselection for  appointment to  any acting or temporary posts
\nfor a  period not  exceeding one  year. According to learned
\ncounsel\t for   the  petitioners,   the\tappointment  of\t the
\npetitioners was\t for a\tperiod of  six months only and there
\nwas no\tnecessity to  consult the  Commission. Consequently,
\naccording to  her the  appointments were  in accordance with
\nthe  statutory\t provisions.  There  is\t no  merit  in\tthis
\ncontention.  If\t  this\tcontention   is\t accepted  the\tmain
\nprovision  contained   in   Section   96   prohibiting\t any
\nappointment without consulting the  Commission can be easily
\ndefeated. Appointments\tcan be\tmade for periods lesser than
\none year  and after  continuing such  appointments for\tsome
\nyears, the  appointees could  be made  permanent. That\twill
\nonly lead  to nepotism\tand anarchy.  The  Statute  has\t not
\nprovided for  any such\tsituation. In fact a note of warning
\nhas been  issued by  this Court in Dr. M.A. Haque and others
\nVersus Union  of India\t& Ors.\t(1993) 2  S.C.C. 213  in the
\nfollowing words :\n<\/p>\n
     “As  against   this,  however,   we
\n     cannot lose  sight of the fact that
\n     the recruitment  rules  made  under
\n     Article  309  of  the  Constitution
\n     have to  be followed  strictly  and
\n     not in  breach. If\t a disregard  of
\n     the rules and the by-passing of the
\n     Public  Service   Commission’s  are
\n     permitted, it will open a back door
\n     for  illegal   recruitment\t without
\n     limit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
With  respect,\twe  adopt  that\t reasoning  and\t reject\t the
\ncontention of the learned counsel for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Learned counsel  attempted to contend that the posts of
\nGDMOs Grade  II were  in category  B within  the meaning  of
\nSection 90  of the  Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and they
\ndid not\t fall within  the ambit of U.P.S.C. There is no such
\nplea in\t the writ  petition. In\t the absence of any specific
\npleading in  that regard  we cannot  permit the petitioner’s
\ncounsel\t to   raise  such  a  contention  at  the  stage  of
\narguments. However,  it must be pointed out that in the writ
\npetition  there\t  is  an  averment  by\tthe  petitioners  in
\nParagraph 12 that since the petitioners have been in service
\nfor periods  ranging between  5 to  9 years,  it  is  to  be
\npresumed that consultation with the approval of U.P.S.C. was
\nobtained for  their continued  appointment. That averment is
\non the\tfooting that  the posts\t fell within   the  ambit of
\nU.P.S.C.. Hence,  it is\t not  open  to\tthe  petitioners  to
\ncontend to the contrary.\n<\/p>\n
15.  The next contention of the petitioners’ counsel is that
\nthey have  been in service for such a long time enjoying the
\nbenefits  of  revised  pay  scales  as\twell  as  allowances
\nperiodically  and  have\t been  prevented  from\tcarrying  on
\nprivate practice  of any  kind whatsoever and therefore they
\nshould be  treated as regular appointees from the inception.
\nSupport is  sought from\t the judgment of this Court in Jacob
\nM. Puthuparambil  and others  etc. etc.\t versus Kerala Water
\nAuthority and  others (1991) 1 S.C.C. 28 in which this Court
\non an  interpretation of  the relevant\trules held that long
\ncontinuous service  of temporary  appointees should  not  be
\nterminated  but\t should\t be  regularised  by  the  authority
\nconcerned. The\truling has  no application  in\tthe  present
\ncase. Our  attention is\t also drawn  to the judgment in I.K.
\nSukhija and others versus Union of India and others (1997) 6
\nS.C.C. 406.  The contention  put forward  by the  counsel in
\nthat case  was that  the appellants  were  governed  by\t the
\ncorollary  of  Conclusion  A  in  the  Direct  Recruit\tcase
\n(supra). The  Court found  on the facts that the appellants’
\npromotions were\t not contrary  to any  statutory recruitment
\nrules,\tthey   were  duly   considered\tby  the\t D.P.C.\t and
\npromotions were\t made according\t to their  placement in t he
\nmerit list.  It was  also found\t that the only reason for ad
\nhoc promotion  instead of  regular promotion  was  that\t the
\ndraft rules  had not  been finalised. In that situation, the
\nCourt held  that the  appellants fell  within the  scope  of
\nConclusion  B  in  Direct  Recruit  case  (supra)  and\twere
\nentitled  to  the  benefit  of\tthe  period  of\t officiating
\nservice. That ruling will not apply in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
16.  The next  contention of  the learned counsel is that by
\nan order  dated 31.12.86  the  Corporation  regularised\t the
\nservices of  several appointees on the recommendation of the
\nUnion  Public  Service\tCommission  with  effect  from\t27th
\nDecember 1980  or the  date  of\t appointment  whichever\t was
\nlater.\t According    to   the\t learned   counsel   hostile
\ndiscrimination is  made against\t the petitioners who were in
\na similar  situation. There  is no merit in this contention.
\nIn the\tcounter-affidavit it  has been clearly stated by the
\nrespondents that  those\t persons  were\tappointed  prior  to
\n20.6.78 during the period of strike of Municipal doctors and
\nnon-availability  of   the  recommended\t  doctors  from\t the
\nU.P.S.C.  and\tthere\twas   an   agreement   between\t the
\nrepresentatives of those doctors pursuant to which they were
\nregularised and\t such regularisation  was with\teffect\tfrom
\n27.12.80 i.e.  the date of recommendation by the U.P.S.C. It
\nshould be  noted that  those appointments were long prior to
\nthe passing  of the  recruitment rules\tand the\t petitioners
\ncannot claim  that they\t are on\t the same  platform as those
\nappointees.\n<\/p>\n
17.  The petitioners  have been regularised with effect from
\n27.6.91 the  date on  which the\t U.P.S.C. recommended  their
\nappointments. Hence there is nothing illegal or arbitrary in
\nthe office order dated 17.8.92 appointing the petitioners on
\nregular\t basis\t with  effect\tfrom   27.6.91.\t  The\tsaid
\nregularisation is in accordance with the rules.\n<\/p>\n
18.  We hold  that the\torder of  regularisation made by the
\nfirst respondent on 17.8.92 with reference to petitioners is
\nvalid and  not arbitrary.  The petitioners  cannot have\t any
\ngrievance against  the same. Consequently the writ petitions
\nhave to fail and they are hereby dismissed. There will be no
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 8 May, 1998 Author: Srinivasan Bench: S.C. Agrawal, M. Srinivasan PETITIONER: DR. ANURADHA BODI & ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/05\/1998 BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, M. SRINIVASAN ACT: HEADNOTE: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 8 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 8 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-15T15:07:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 8 May, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-15T15:07:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3365,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998\",\"name\":\"Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 8 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-15T15:07:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 8 May, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 8 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 8 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-15T15:07:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 8 May, 1998","datePublished":"1998-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-15T15:07:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998"},"wordCount":3365,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998","name":"Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 8 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-15T15:07:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anuradha-bodi-ors-etc-etc-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-8-may-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 8 May, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}