Delhi High Court
Dr.Rashmi Paul vs Union Of India & Others on 25 January, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.3111/2001
% Date of Decision: 25.01.2010
Dr.Rashmi Paul .... Petitioner
Through Nemo.
Versus
Union of India & Others .... Respondents
Through Mr.Atul Nanda and Mr.Gaurav Gupta,
Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.Ravi Sikri and Mr. Vaibhav Kalra,
Advocates for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
Learned counsel for the respondent contends that SLP No.
13948/2003 titled Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and
others Vs. Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal and another, has since been
decided and is also reported as (2009) 3 SCC 35.
In the said appeal before the Supreme Court, the apex court was
concerned with the scheme framed by the Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research and others pursuant to the directions of the Central
Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court contemplating
absorption of only those researcher who had put in 15 years of such
continuous research as Fellow/Associate/Project Associate as on 2nd
May, 1997.
The cut-off dated 2nd May, 1997 was challenged before the High
Court as being arbitrary which plea was accepted by the High Court
holding that scheme should have covered all the researcher up to date
of the circulation of the scheme i.e 3rd July, 1998. The plea of
researcher that the period of 15 years prescribed in the scheme was
arbitrary because ordinarily the tenure of the researcher on various
positions was 13 years and consequently the scheme was unreasonable
as only two chances were given for submitting the application for
regularization was also accepted by the High Court.
The apex court, thereafter, has, however, reversed the decision of
the High Court, and has held that the State is entitled to fix the cut-off
date and such decision can be struck down only when it is arbitrary.
The Supreme Court, in the circumstances, has upheld the scheme
which was framed by Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
pursuant to the order of Central Administrative Tribunal and the
Supreme Court.
The relevant paragraphs- paras 33, 34 and 43 of the Supreme
Court Judgment are as under:-
33. Indisputably, a policy decision is not beyond the pale of
judicial review. But, the court must invalidate a policy on
some legal principles. It can do so, inter alia, on the
premise that it is wholly irrational and not otherwise. The
contention of the respondents that only two chances are
granted for consideration of the candidature of the
employees for the purpose of regularization is, in our
opinion, misconceived. The Scheme being a one-time
measure, even one opportunity could have been granted.
34. It was with a view to give benefit to the employees
concerned that their services are continued so that they
can avail another opportunity. Indisputably, the
quantity/quality of research work done by a researcher is a
very important consideration for assessing the suitability.
But, that would not mean that any researcher as on 2-5-
1997 may not be in a position to complete 15 years of the
service but would do so on 03-07-1998 and, thus, may be
deprived of the opportunity of two chances by itself. This
could not have been a ground to strike down the cut-off
date fixed by the appellants. It is reiterated that a person
may get, having regard to the Scheme, one chance or two
chances.
43. Regularization, as is well known, cannot be a mode of
recruitment. It does not mean permanence. Only an
irregularity can be regularized; an illegality cannot be.
Contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties
that the Rules were unworkable is equally meritless apart
from the that at least fifty candidates had been found
eligible for consideration, out of whom eight had been
selected. Even according to the respondents themselves
they have been working for more than 13 years. Thus, it is
not correct to contend that the period of 15 years which
was fixed, was an unreasonable one.
Therefore under the decision of Supreme Court, the petitioners
are not entitled to regularization as they are beyond the purview of the
scheme which was framed by the Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research which has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The notice of the petition was issued to the counsel for the
petitioner, Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, who had been served, however, no
one has appeared on his behalf despite the matter having been passed
over once. In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioner
is not entitled for any further relief. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs. All the pending
applications are also disposed of accordingly.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
JANUARY 25, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'ss'
