Dr. (Smt.) Neeta Pandey and Another vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Mohd. Tauseef for Petitioners, learned standing counsel and perused record.

The submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the opposite parties have failed to regularize the services of the Petitioners as Medical Officer in terms of the judgment and order dated 21.11.1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 857 (S/B) of 1993 (Dr. Ramesh Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.) read with the judgment & order dated 11.3.1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 3201 of 1992, Yogendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. which have been upheld by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in its decision delivered in SLP No. 21984-21985 of 1995.

While allowing the writ petitions (supra) this Court had directed to consider the representation of Petitioners within the specific period. Before the Hon''ble Supreme Court a statement on behalf of Respondent was made that the State Government has taken a policy decision to regularize the Petitioners against 703 posts in near future like Medical Officers.

The relevant portion of the order passed by Hon''ble Supreme court of India is being quoted below:

Admittedly, at present memo of the doctors having BAMS degree is working against the post of Medical Officer (Allopathic). They have been appointed on ad-hoc basis against 703 vacancies of Medical Officer (Ayurvedic) and the State Government has taken a policy decision to regularize them against the aforesaid 703 posts in near future like Medical Officers (Homeopathic).

From the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court it is obvious that keeping in view the submission made on behalf of the Respondent the Hon''ble Supreme Court has disposed of the SLP The submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Petitioners were party in earlier bunch of writ petitions (supra) and this case was covered by the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court and, as such, they are also entitled for regularization. The grievance of the Petitioners is that inspite of the judgment & orders passed by this Court as well as of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India (supra) the Petitioners have not been considered for regularization.

We are of the view that since the Petitioners were a party in earlier proceeding as well as the matter which has been disposed of by Hon''ble Supreme Court, their case seems to be covered by the said judgment. No decision may be taken by the State Government providing cut off date deviating from earlier stand and the same shall not deprive the Petitioners of the right to claim benefit of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court.

Since the controversy has already been set at rest and the Petitioners have not been considered for regularization, this writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Government of U.P. Luck now to consider the case of Petitioners for regularization in light of the judgment of this Court as well as of Hon''ble Supreme Court (supra) and decide the same expeditiously preferably within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No orders as to cost.