Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 141.

Binding precedent - Doctrine of - Judgment of three-judge Bench and two-judge Bench - Conflict - Effect of - On facts, dispute over inter se seniority between temporary doctors and selectee doctors - Three-Judge Bench upholding right of temporary doctors to count their seniority from date of initial appointment - In subsequent judgment two-Judge Bench holding that temporary doctors acquire seniority from the date of their regular appointment - State Government taking action on directions of two-judge Bench - Writ Petitions filed - Referring matter to five-Judge Bench for consideration, Held : Judgment of two-Judge Bench does not lay down correct law, being in conflict with three-judge Bench - Two-Judge Bench to follow decision of three-judge Bench.

Dispute of inter se seniority arose between the temporary doctors originally appointed in consultation with Public Service Commission (PSC) and selectee doctors appointed through the PSC. Three-Judge Bench upheld the right of temporary doctors as a class to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment In subsequent judgment, 2-Judge Bench held appointment de hors, the rules do not confer any right of seniority and temporary doctors acquired rights only from the date of their regular appointment according to regularisation rules. Thereafter the respondents took consequent action on basis of the directions issued by two-Judge Bench. Hence the present writ petition which is referred for consideration to five-Judge Bench.

The question which arose for consideration is with regard to existence of conflict between the judgment of the three-Judge Bench and the two-Judge Bench, the effect of such conflict, if any, and whether the writ petitions should be finally decided by this Bench or not.