Dr. Mrs. Kiran Srivastava And ... vs The University Grants Commission
2001 Latest Caselaw 452 Del

ORDER

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. Since the facts and issues involved in all these writ petitions are similar and common, I propose to dispose of all the writ petitions by this common judgment and order.

2. The petitioners herein were engaged as Research Associates in terms of the a Scheme introduced by the University Grants Commission somewhere in the year 1983. In terms of the aforesaid scheme, the engagement of the petitioners as Research Associate was initially for a period of three years which was extendable for another term, for a period, not exceeding two years. The petitioners as Research Associates are seeking for a direction in these writ petitions to the respondent to continue all the petitioners in service till they are regularly absorbed in a suitable post on permanent basis. It is also prayed in the writ petitions that the decision of the University Grants Commission to scrap the existing Scheme for Research Associates and Research Scientists be set aside and quashed.

3. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is necessary to have a close look into the contents of the Scheme propounded by the Commission. The said Research Associateship was of a fixed value per month. The said benefit was intended to be given to research scholars and teachers below the age of 45 years and 55 years in case of women candidates who have obtained a Doctorate degree and have published evidence of independent research work. Duration of the said Associateship was for a period of three years on the basis of progress of work. After promulgation of the said Scheme, applications were invited from those candidates only who have obtained Ph.D degree for award of the Research Associateships in Science, Humanities, Social Science, Engineering and Technology, Gandhian studies and subjects of national integration. Such applications were invited by the University Grants Commission at different point of time which was tenable at a University/College or Institution approved under the University Grants Commission Act for receiving Central Assistance. The petitioners applied for as against such advertisements and were selected and engaged as Research Associates initially for a period of three years with a stipulation that the same could be extended for another two years subject to progress of work.

4. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the said Scheme was intended to provide opportunities to those who intend to take up research work int he aforesaid Branches in project basis and who had completed their Ph.D within the preceding two years and had shown talent and competence for independent research. It transpired from the records that the University Grants Commission at a subsequent meeting held in the month of March, 1998, considered the matter regarding the Scheme of Research Associateship and decided that the Scheme be discontinued due to acute shortage of funds. It was, however, decided that the existing Research Associates and Research Scientists working under the aforesaid Scheme would continue up to the end of their tenure stipulated in the said guidelines.

5. In the background of the aforesaid facts and the nature of the engagement of the petitioners, and in the light of the respective submission of the counsel for the parties the issue that arises for my consideration is whether a direction could be issued to the University Grants Commission to continue the engagement of the petitioners till they are regularly absorbed and also whether a direction could be issued to the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioners.

6. The aforesaid Scheme was propounded by the University Grants Commission. But it is an admitted position that all the petitioners who are engaged are working as Research Associates in different Universities/Institutes recognised by the Commission. The petitioners have only imp leaded the University Grants Commission as party respondent herein and the University/Institute or the College in which the petitioners are engaged as Research Associates are not parties in the present writ petition.

7. Counsel appearing for the petitioners could not place any material before me to prove and establish that Research Associateship is a cadre post in the respective Universities/Institutes where the petitioners are engaged. In the said Universitates/Institutes there are posts in the cadres of Professor, Additional Professor, Assistant Professor, Readers, Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, etc. There is no cadre post in those Universities/Institutes under the nomenclature Research Associate, which came to be created for the first time under the Scheme pronounced by the respondent, as is indicated from the Scheme. The engagement of the petitioners was for a fixed duration of three years which could be extended for another term not exceeding two years. The Associateship carried a consolidated value as is disclosed from the Scheme propounded. It is apparent from the nature of the engagement of the petitioners and the contents of the Scheme that such engagement was never intended to be a regular appointment or employment, but was an arrangement for doing research work for a fixed duration. it, therefore, cannot confer any vested right on the petitioners to continue in the said post in perpetuity till the age of retirement or a right to be regularised in the said post. A person could get himself regularised in a particular post when it is a permanent post carrying proper pay scale and is borne in a particular cadre.

8. The post of Research Associateship has no such features and was for a fixed duration and carried with it only a consolidated value payable to a Research Associate till he completes his research project. It was not intended to be a permanent employment but was a stop gap arrangement and, therefore, selection for engagement against such Associateship could not have conferred any right on the petitioners to be appointed to a permanent post or to be regularised. The Research Associates are not put in any of the cadre of the Universities and the emoluments paid to them did not have any resemblance or relationship to the existing cadre post of the Universities. The said engagement created contractual relationship for a minimum period of five years and was not intended to create any permanent relationship between the employer and the employee. The Scheme is no longer in existence, the same having been scrapped and discontinued by the respondent in view of acute shortage of funds. The aforesaid decision having been taken by the authority in the light of financial constraint and being a policy matter of the respondent cannot be interfered with unless it is shown to be unreasonable or against public policy. No materials have been placed on record to show that it is either unreasonable or against public policy. No judicial review is therefore permissible. Accordingly, also no direction could also be issued by this Court for regularisation of the said Research Associates. The Institutions/Universities/College in which the petitioners are presently engaged are also not parties before this court and on that ground also no relief could be made available to the petitioners.

9. An order for regularisation of services of the petitioners could be made only on availability or existence of a post of the nature and vacancies therein and that too in accordance with the Recruitment/Appointment Rules and Regulations of the particular Institute/University. No such relevant document is placed on record by the petitioners to prove existence of such facts. It is also not established from the records that any of the aforesaid Universities/Institutes where the petitioners are working at present has a cadre post in the nomenclature of Research Associate. Since there is no such post in the Universities/Institutes, the petitioners cannot be ordered to be regularised in regular cadre posts which are required to be filled up through the process of open selection, in accordance with the provisions of Recruitment and Appointment Regulations.

10. In the case of C.S.I.R and others Vs. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain; , it was held by the Supreme Court that an appointment under a Scheme cannot be equated with regular appointment as per the relevant recruitment rules against a sanctioned post. It was further held that to be eligible for regularisation, the concerned person has to come within the relevant rules. The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court are also applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Pushpa Srivasava (Smt.); , the Supreme Court held that in absence of any rule and when the appointment was purely ad hoc and on contractual basis for a limited period, on expiry of the said period, the right to remain in the post comes to an end. It was held that the appointment being contractual and ad hoc which came to an end by afflux of time, the respondent had no right to an continue n the said post and of claim regularisation in service in absence of any rule providing for regularisation after a specified period of service.

11. In the light of the aforesaid principles laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court and also in the context of the facts and circumstances of the present cases, the petitioners cannot claim any right much less vested right to continue to remain as Research Associates beyond the contract period and their right to remain in the is a dcapcity come to an end on expiry of the contract period. These writ petitions, therefore, have no merit and are dismissed accordingly. Interim orders passed by this Court stand vacated. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.