Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 67 of 1998
PETITIONER:
PSO.SVT.-UDNOICVTEORRSAILTYR,ESEARCH ASSOCIATES OF
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/04/2002
BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu & P. Venkatarama Reddi
JUDGMENT:
[With W.P.(C) Nos.101/98, 102/98, 103/98, 444/98, 62/98, 117/98,118/98 & 194/98]
J U D G M E N T
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
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 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
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 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 vs. CSIR in O.A.No.83/96 and this aspect
was further clarified by this Court in CSIR & Ors. vs. 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 & Ors. vs. 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 & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1991 (4)
SCC 171, this Court followed the decision rendered in V.L.Chandra’s
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
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 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.
...J.
[ S. RAJENDRA BABU ]
...J.
[P.VENKATARAMA REDDI]
APRIL 26, 2002.