Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr R K Singh vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 11 September, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.4073/2012
MA No.1035/2015
MA No.2557/2016
New Delhi, this the 11th day of September, 2018
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Singh,
Aged about 52 years,
S/o Shri Ram Bachan Singh,
Residing at L-3, Kaligarh Colony,
Kaligarh Market, Loha Mandi,
Maldahiyia, Varanasi-221002
State of Uttar Pradesh
Working as Senior Research Officer,
At National Research Institute of Ayurvedic Drug
Development, CCRAS, Dept. of AYUSH,
Ministry of Health & F.W.,
Govt. of India,
4-CN Block, Sector-V, Bidhannagar,
Kolkata-700091.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Atif Suhrawardy with Shri Mohammad
Abdullah Khan)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Govt. of India, Nirman Bhawan-II,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Through its Director General
Of the Central Council for Research
In Ayureveda and Siddha, now name as
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Science
An Autonomous Organisation under the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Bhartiya-Chikisa Evam,
Homeopathy Aanusendhan Bhawan No.61-65,
Institutional Area opposite 'D'Block, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058.
..Respondents
(By Advocates : Shri Jasbir Bidhuri
Shri R.K. Jain for Shri Sunil Ahuja)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman :-
The applicant is a Doctorate in Zoology/Pharmacology. In the year 1989, he was
appointed as Research Fellow through order dated 28.06.1989, by the Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medical Sciences, a program taken up by the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences ( said to be in operation).
2. It is stated that such appointment has been extended from time to time and in the year 2000, he was appointed as Senior Research Fellow. Even that appointment was extended up to the year 2012. However, on 15.10.2012, the respondents refused to extend the appointment further.
3. In the year 2008, the Organisation has taken up the task of examining the feasibility of appointing the Sr. Research Fellows against the vacancies of Assistant Research Officers and Research Officers. The applicant states that hoping that he would be considered against one of them he continued as Sr. Research Fellow, but he was abruptly discontinued.
4. This OA is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider the feasibility of appointing the applicant as Research Officer (Pharmacology) and for consequential benefits, we, however, notice that prayer is not properly worded. The applicant contends that he holds the requisite qualification for being appointed to the post of Research Officer, and without any valid reason, neither he was appointed nor continued as Senior Research Fellow, despite there being necessity to continue him, at least on contractual basis.
5. The OA was dismissed at admission stage on 05.12.2012. Aggrieved by that, the applicant filed WP(C) No.2760/2013. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 03.07.2014, leaving it open to the applicant to file a Review Petition. The RA was accordingly, allowed on 13.07.2016. Hence, the OA is being heard afresh.
6. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that the claim of the applicant for appointment to the post of Research Officer cannot be considered since he does not hold the qualifications for the vacancies that are existing as of now. The counter affidavit, however, is silent as to what are the reasons on account on which, the applicant was discontinued as Sr. Research Fellow.
7. We heard Shri Atif Suhrawardy, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Jasbir Bidhuri and Shri R.K. Jain for Shri Sunil Ahuja, learned counsel for respondents.
8. It is only the ministerial or non technical employees who are normally appointed on contractual basis and are continued from time to time. The applicant is a Doctorate in Zoology/Pharmacology, but he was appointed as Research Fellow initially for a period of six months on contractual basis. This appointment could have been possible, if only a short term project was taken up for a limited purpose. The very fact that the appointment was being continued for past 23 years discloses that the work was permanent in nature.
9. We certainly find it difficult to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as Research Officer straightaway. The reason is that it is only when a properly constituted selection committee, selects candidates, after verification of the required qualifications and experience, that appointment to such a higher post can be made. The record also discloses that the applicant was over-aged for being considered and in the order dated 15.10.2012 itself, it was mentioned that the request for relaxation of age limit would be considered and he will be informed if any decision is taken in this behalf.
10. Though we are not inclined to grant the relief to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as Research Officer, we do find considerable strength in his contention that his appointment as Sr. Research Fellow needs to be continued, unless the vacancy or post against which the applicant was working has been filled up on regular basis. More than the right of the applicant, it is also the necessity of the Organisation to avail his services, that too on the basis of experience spread over more than two decades, we, therefore, dispose of the OA, directing that in case the nature of work, which the applicant has been performing till 15.10.2012, still exists, the respondents shall consider the feasibility of continuing him on the same terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Aradhana Johri) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member(A) Chairman 'rk'