Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 67 of 1998
PETITIONER:
POST-DOCTORAL RESEARCH ASSO. OF S.V. UNIVERSITY DR. K. KRISHNAREDDY & ORS.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/04/2002
BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2002 (3) SCR 492
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJENDRA BABU, J. This batch of writ petitions have been filed by Post-
Doctoral Research Associates having Research Associateship under a scheme
framed either by the University Grants Commission [for short ’UGC’] or by
the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research [for short ’CSIR’]. Some of
the petitioners had filed writ petitions before the High Court of Delhi in
C.W.P. Nos. 4088/98 and these petitions were dismissed by stating that the
petitioners cannot claim any right to continue to remain as Research
Associates beyond the contract period and their right to remain in the said
capacity come to an end on expiry of the contract period. Those petitioners
are before this Court, the UGC has given a list of Research Associate and
in practically all the cases the research work has not exceeded five years
and on completion of the tenure their fellowship has been discontinued.
Further it has been stated before us that earlier the UGC has discontinued
the scheme for the year 1998 except in relation to those who are continued
under the existing scheme.
Under the scheme, duration of the Research Associateship is for an initial
period of three years and a further extension of one or two years would be
given after evaluation by an expert committee. Such Research Associateship
is not intended to be an employment but an interim arrangement made for
getting a job in any University or College during which the Research
Associate was given an opportunity to pursue research. If a Research
Associate obtained employment during the currency of the Research
Associateship, he was at liberty to resign from the Research Associateship
and join a new post. They were not designated as Lecturers and the
emoluments paid to them bear no relationship to the existing schemes in
Universities.
Considering the tentative nature of this Associateship, on behalf of the
writ petitioners it is urged before us in these writ petitions that the
scheme of Research Associateship is counter productive causing great harm
not only to the research scholars but also to the entire nation as once the
tenure of Research Associateship expires there is no way to evaluate the
validity or soundness of the research undertaken by them during the last a
few years of such associateship; the UGC or CSIR cannot assess whether the
expenditure incurred year after year in this regard is properly utilised or
not; that the scheme contemplated by the UGC as well as CSIR clearly
indicates that Research Associateship is treated as permanent except that
the researchers are appointed on tenure basis; that the short tenures fixed
under the scheme would defeat the very purpose of the research their being
no continuity in the projects undertaken and when once the tenure is over,
if there is no extension, the research done in the couple of years would be
rendered futile; that if there is a sense of security with sustained
follow-up under the control and supervision of the institutions, it would
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
be useful not only to the scholars but also to the nation; that the UGC and
CSIR Research Associateship are the first and perhaps the only avenues to
doctorates intending to dedicate their lives for research. If sufficient
security is provided to them as by the end of their Associateship they
would be in a position to find any job else where, their service in the
institution would be useful and fruitful. Therefore, they implore upon us
for a direction to the respondents to evolve a scheme so that the research
and development in the nation is optimally supported and benefited by the
scholarship and intellect of the Research Associates and also provide a
sense of security to them.
In resisting these writ petitions, the UGC has set out in detail the nature
of the Research Associateship scheme which was formulated in 1983 and
discontinued in 1998. The research contemplated would cover even work in
humanities and social sciences including languages and science, engineering
and technology independently and on project basis. The scheme was available
to those who have completed their Ph.D. within the last two years and have
shown talent and competence for independent research. The UGC pointed out
that the Research Associates were not designated as lecturers nor were
their emoluments comparable with that of the lecturers. The Research
Associateship would not envisage the creation of any post or any other
appointment and they are not working against specific posts since no posts
are created for such Associateship. The teaching work, if any, undertaken
by the Research Associate is part of the research or training and is not an
appointment to a substantive post. The contractual relationship was for a
maximum period of five years and there was no question of employment of the
said Research Associate. Even as late as May 5, 1997, the UGC decided that
the Research Associateship should continue only on tenure basis for a
period of three years extendable by two more years and such Associateship
would be terminated at the end of it. Any fresh selection would be by
application and selection for placement in the relevant fellowship bracket
and the UGC was not at all in favour of making the research scholars
permanent. The scheme was only to provide post-doctoral experience and it
would not possible to give permanence to the scholars. Still later on in
March 1998 the UGC decided to discontinue the scheme at the end of IXth
Five Year Plan due to acute shortage of funds. It was also made clear that
the position of Research Associates would continue to be available under
the scheme of Major Research Projects and other quality programmes under
their respective grants on ad hoc contractual positions for the period of
the project. Under the UGC Scheme, there were 933 Research Associates
working under various Universities all over the country entailing an
expenditure of Rs. 9 crores annually which would get enhanced to Rs.13 to
Rs.14 crores in due course. The UGC as such does not have any post of
Research Associate and the concerned scholars were working in the
institutions all over the country and such institutions have their own
recruitment rules for appointment thereto. Appointing Research Associate to
any vacant post would be tantamount to denying meritorious candidates the
opportunity to apply for the said post and, therefore, making those posts
available to the Research Associate would not be appropriate and further
various Universities being autonomous bodies have their own relevant
recruitment rules to be applied in such matters.
The UGC also brings out the difference between the Research Associates
Scheme and the Research Scientists Scheme of the UGC. The Research
Scientists Scheme was intended to build a cadre of Research Scientists in
Indian Universities to promote high quality research in science,
engineering and technology and humanities including social sciences by
providing opportunities to persons with outstanding merit. Unlike the
Research Associates who were retained on a fixed amount much less than that
of corresponding grades in Universities, the Research Scientists receive
scales equivalent to Lecturer, Reader and Professor with all other benefits
such dearness allowance, provident fund, etc. Therefore, the Research
Scientists Scheme had built into it a permanency and equivalence with
University teachers. On the other hand, the Research Associates scheme did
not contemplate either permanency and equivalence with University teachers
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
in any manner. The candidates with Ph.D. degree are eligible to apply for a
Research Associateship whereas for the Research Scientists Scheme, Ph.D.
along with research experience of not less than two years is required at
the minimum grade of Research Scientists ’A’ and the said scheme had been
revised which is also for a fixed non-renewable term of five years only and
this scheme has also been discontinued now.
The stand of the CSIR is also similar. The main features of the scheme is
to give placement to the Scientists on a temporary basis to facilitate them
in the meantime to find out appointment on regular basis. They are not
given any appointment but attached to a Government Department or State
Industrial Enterprises, National Labs., Universities/Scientific Institution
etc. and they may even be attached to an establishment in private sector.
The main purpose and intention of the Scheme is to give placement to Pool
Officers which is not against any post but is an unemployment support and
the placement of such a scientist as pool officer does not guarantee him
any appointment with the CSIR or the Government Department on regular
basis. There is another scheme called "Scheme of Quick Recruitment of
Scientists (Fellows)’ which provides selection and such fellows will be on
a contract for a period not exceeding three years and it may be terminated
during the prescribed period. At present, only 10% of the total Senior
Research Associates under Scientists Pool Scheme and those scientists who
have put in 15 years of research service or more which include 13 years of
experience in different kinds of fellowship or Associateship and it is only
such persons who are considered for absorption in regular establishments.
The petitioners, it is contended, are neither doing any research in any of
the CSIR labs nor have they put in 15 years of research work with the CSIR
system on account of which they cannot be considered for absorption in the
CSIR and that the scheme was framed pursuant to an order made in C.A. No.
1680/1997. by this Court in a matter arising from the order made by the
Central Administrative Tribunal in Pratibha Mishra v. in O.A. No. 83/96 and
this aspect was further clarified by this Court in CSIR and Ors. v. Dr.
Ajay Kumar Jain, [2000] 4 SCC 186. It is, therefore, contended that the
kind of directions sought for in these petitions cannot be granted.
Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners on a decision of this
Court in V.L. Chandra and Ors. v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
[1990] 3 SCC 39, in which ad hoc appointments made in one project or
another continuing for long periods and thereafter on projects drying up,
researchers in such projects having worked for continuously for 10 to 15
years their services having been discontinued on the ground of absence of
further projects would give rise to human problem of deprivation of source
of sustenance as with the advancement in age they become disentitled to
jobs in government or public sector undertakings and, therefore, this Court
gave direction to evolve a scheme for building up a team of researchers in
coordination with Health Ministry and to provide employment to the
aggrieved persons either as researchers or in any suitable employment until
their inclusion in the team is considered.
In Dr. V.P. Chaturvedi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1991] 4 SCC
171, this Court followed the decision rendered in V.L. Chandra’s case
[supra] and similar directions were given in that case also. This Court in
Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain’s case [supra] examined the scheme of appointment as
Pool Officer under Scientists’ Pool Scheme or as Scientist Fellow under the
Scheme of Quick Recruitment of Scientists [Fellow] for major Projects on
contract basis for a limited period and held that it did not entitle them
to regularisation of their services or absorption in CSIR and distinguished
the decision in Pratibha Mishra ’s case [supra] to which we have adverted
to earlier.
The fact remains that in none of these cases the petitioners have worked
for a period of 10 to 15 years. They have no doubt worked under different
schemes on tenure basis. Now what is sought for in these writ petitions is
not regularisation and that position was made clear by the learned counsel
for the petitioners. On the other hand what was submitted was that the UGC
and CSIR must frame appropriate scheme to support scientific advancement
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
providing a healthy climate for the research fellows to carry on such work
and these research fellows who are petitioners before us can carry on such
work only with a sense of security for their continuity in the work done by
them which would be beneficial to the country as a whole and also to these
individual. The scheme evolved by UGC or CSIR is only a supportive
programme for the research fellows during the period of unemployment
initially for a period of five years. Such scheme will allow research
fellows who have done their Ph.D. and have a waiting period of five years
when they have got no jobs to keep them active in their work, facilities
are provided to them to carry on research on tenure basis. If that is so,
it may not be accurate to state that is only to encourage research that
these research fellows have been engaged and not by way of support to them
during the period of their unemployment and if that aspect is borne in mind
that the UGC or the CSIR have framed scheme to give support to such
candidates for a particular period during which they can obtain job in an
appropriate University or institution or in any other organisation, it
cannot be stated that such scheme is faulty. It is more by way of a social
welfare measure such action is being taken and not merely to promote
scientific research which may be an incidental fall out under the Scheme.
Therefore, it would be very difficult for us to direct any scheme being
framed by the UGC or the CSIR in this regard. All that this Court can hope
is that the UGC or the CSIR would bear in mind research work done by these
scholars and provide them appropriate opportunities whenever an occasion
arises.
With the aforesaid observation, these writ petitions shall stand dismissed.
No costs.