Delhi High Court
Amita Gulati And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: ILR1996DELHI327
Author: J.B. Goel
Bench: J.B. Goel
JUDGMENT J.B. Goel, J.
(1) Rule D.B. (2) Both the parties have filed detailed pleadings and documents in support thereof. We have also heard the counsel for the parties at length and so this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage finally.
(3) Respondent No. 2. Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi (hereinafter called the Institute) is a statutory body corporate constituted 'declared as Institution under the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 as amended by Act No. 29 of 1963.
(4) Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5, it is alleged, have been working as Sr. Research Assistants, (for short SRA) in. this Institute from various dates 1987 onwards continuously and uninterruptedly during the periods of their employment with the Institute their appointments have been extended from time to time vide separate letters/memos. Vide office memorandum No. IITD/E.I/U. 2/88 dated 9-6-1995 (Annexure P-45), (besides some others) four of the petitioners, namely. Sh. Sunil Kumar, Mrs. Anjana Gupta. Sh. Bhaskar Jha and Ms. Amita Gulati have been informed that the term of their appointment as Sra will expire on 30-6-1995 and as such they may be relieved on that date. Vide memo dated 13-6-1995 issued by Prof. Prem Vrat, Co-ordinator, Applied System Research Programme (Annexure P-47). Mrs. Anjana Gupta has been informed that she will stand relieved from 30-6-1995 in accordance with aforesaid memo dated 9-6-1995. Similarly vide another letter No. HTD/Estt. IU-3/35 dated 12-6-1995 issued by Assistant Registrar (E-1) of the Institute (also annexure P-47) Shri Bhaskar Jha has also been informed that his contract of appointment will expire on 30-6-1995. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid office A memos, annexures P-45 and P-47 and various letters giving them extensions in service from time to time, as illegal, malafide arbitrary and unconstitutional. Declaration is sought that there were regular cadre posts of SEAS available, in the Institute, and the petitioners were appointed against those posts and they should have been regularised against those posts and to quash letters and Resolutions of the institute treating them as on contract. Whereas the main contention on behalf of respondent/institute is that the petitioners were not appointed on regular basis but on temporary project posts.
(5) Brief history of the appointments of the petitioners in the institute as appears from the pleadings and documents filed by the parties is as given below: 1. Sunil Kumar (Petitioner No. 5) (6) Vide letter No. HTD/IRD/R-265/8792. dated 24-2-1987 (Annexure P-21) he was given the offer of appointment upto April, 1989 against temporary post of Senior Research Assistant on the basis of his application and subsequent interview at a starting salary of Rs. 650 per month in the pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 under the Research Scheme "enthalpies of Formation and heat capacities of Industrially Important Chemicals Compounds" in operation under Professor J. C. Ahluwalia, Department of Chemistry of the Institute, inter-alia, on the following terms and conditions : (1.)"The appointment is purely on temporary basis and will not continue beyond the duration of the above scheme viz. upto April, 1989. Your appointment in this outside funded project does not give you any claim whatsoever for appointment/regularisation against the Institute post." "if the above terms and conditions are acceptable to you, please join the post before 25-3-1987, failing which it will be presumed that you have not accepted the offer and the offer shall be treated as withdrawn/cancelled."
(7) No document about the acceptance or otherwise has been placed on record by the parties. It can be presumed that this offer with its terms was accepted and petitioner had worked on this project. This shows that it was an appointment to a project post with its term upto April, 1989 on purely temporary basis giving no right to claim regularisation against the Institute post. 2. Ms. Amita Gulati (Petitioner No. 1 ) (8) (A) Vide office memo No. HTD/IRD/R-300/ 1091, dated 21-7-1989 (Annexure P-24) she was appointed as Senior Research Assistant on daily wages basis at the rate of Rs. 65 per day for a period of three months under the Research Scheme "Theoretical Studies and Numerical Modeling of Atmospheric Processes in Tropics General Circulation Models for Simulation & Prediction of Atmospheric Circulation in the Tropics" in operation under Prof. M. P. Singh in the Department of Center Cas (It appears Cas stands tor "Center for Atmospheric Studies or Sciences)." (b) She was again appointed as S.R.A. vide office memo No. IITD-IRD/R-300/5772, dated 27-10-1989 (Annexure P-25) on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 65 per day for a period of three months w.e.f. 27-10-1989 on the same project. (c) She was given an offer of appointment vide letter No. IITD-IRD/R-300/10394, dated 21-2-1990 (Annexure P-26) on the basis of her application dated 12-2-1990 and interview held for selection for appointment to the temporary project post of Senior Research Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 on ad hoc basis for a period upto 31-3-1990 on the project "Theoretical studies & Numerical Modeling of Atmospheric Processes in the Tropics." On the term that "The appointment is purely on ad hoc basis and will not continue beyond the period. Your appointment in this outside funded project does not give you any claim whatsoever for appointment/regularisation against the Institute Post". Her acceptance was asked.
(9) Vide appointment letter being Om No. IITD-IRD/PF/SRA/ 289/10472, dated 28-3-1990 (Annexure. P-27) she was appointed on the Project in operation under Prof. M. P. Singh, Head, CAS. on the terms and conditions contained in the aforesaid letter of offer dated 21-2-1990, w.e.f. 21-2-1990.
(10) Further ad hoc appointment on the same project was extended upto 31-7-1990 vide office memo No. IITD-IRD/R-300/ 12, dated 2-4-1990 (Annexure P-27).
(11) It was made clear that her appointment was on outside funded project post on ad hoc basis for particular period and on specific condition that the appointment will not give any right for confirmation or for regular appointment to the post of SRA. (3) Bhaskar Jha (Petitioner No. 3) (12) (A) He was appointed as S.R.A. on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 80 per day for a period of three months under Research Scheme "Theoretical Studies and Numerical Modeling of Atmospheric Processes in the Tropics" vide office memo No. IITD-IRD/ R-300/156, dated 7-4-1989 (Annexure P-22). under the heading "Announcement for appointment, to the post of Research Staff" advertised the post of Senior Research Assistant in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 plus allowances for appointment "on contract basis" with duties and responsibilities specified as under :- 'TOassist the faculty in their research, hardware and software development activities in cludng preparation of Av and multi-media software and to simultaneously undergo training for a research career."
Details of 23 projects, their relative Departments/Centers and minimum qualifications/experience required were specified. It was inter alia specified as under:- (1) The Senior Research Assistants are permitted to seek registration to Ph.D. at the Institute after they complete a service of one year as Senior Research Assistant. (2) The appointment to the posts of S.R.A. is on temporary basis. Initially the appointment is made on one year contract and subject to satisfactory performance the contract is extended annually for a further period of 2 years or till the submission of Ph.D. Thesis whichever is earlier. After three years of contrast appointment the SEAS can be given, on merits of each case, another contract for a further period not exceeding 2 years, subject to the Project continuing.
(13) It appears that in pursuance to this advertisement all the 5 petitioners had applied, called for and appeared before the Selection. (b) Thereafter on the basis of his application and interview held on 26-5-1989 he was offered the post of Senior Research Assistant vide letter No. IITD-IRD/R-300/18086, dated 7-6-1989 (Annexure P-23) on the temporary Project Research Scheme. "Theoretical Studies and Numerical Modeling of Atmospheric process in the Tropics" sanctioned upto March, 1990 under Prof. M. P. Singh on purely temporary basis upto March, 1990 in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and on the specific condition that "The appointment is purely on temporary basis and will not continue beyond the duration of the above scheme viz. upto March, 1990. Your appointment in the outside funded project does not give you any claim whatsoever for appointment/regularization against the Institute post" : and his acceptance was called.
(14) No further document on this aspect has been placed on record. It is presumed that this offer with its conditions was accepted by him.
(15) These appointments of these three petitioners being against the project post for fixed period and on temporary basis will not give any right to claim regularisation on the post of S.R.A. in the institute.
(16) It appears that thereafter the Institute vide advertisement No. 2/90(E-I) (Annexure P-28) Committee for interview and were offered appointments as Senior Research Assistants in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200, inter alia with the terms and conditions specified that the appointment is on "contract basis for a period of one year" and "liable to termination by giving one month's notice in writing on either side" and they were appointed on particular projects in Centers/departments vide letters of offer of appointment being dated 1-8-90, 24-6-91, 1-8-90, 19-9-90 and 19-9-90 respectively (Annexure P-34 collectively).
(17) They were appointed vide appointment letters dated 24-8-90, 16-8-90, 23-8-90, 29-10-90 and 29-10-90 respectively (Annexure P. 37 collectively) subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the offers of appointment memos (Annexure P-34 (Collectively). Their terms of appointment were extended on the same terms and conditions upto 30-6-1995 on yearly basis vide various letters (Annexures P-33, P-38 P-40 and P-41).
(18) Alter expiry of their terms on 30-6-1995, vide office memo dated 9-6-1995 Sunil Kumar, M/s. Amita Gulati, Bhaskar Jha and Mrs. Anjana Gupta have been informed that their terms of appointment will expire on 30-6-1995. Obviously their terms have not been extended after 30-6-1995. Term of Satnam Singh would have expired on 10-10-1995.
(19) As already mentioned the advertisement No. 2190 (E-1) (Annexure P-28) provided that the appointments of S.R.As.will be made on appropriate various projects mentioned therein which included the projects in Departments of Chemistry, Center for Atmospheric Sciences and Department of Electrical Engineering where the petitioners were appointed.
(20) Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that against 91 sanctioned regular posts of S.R.As. only 34 persons are working as on 15-7-3991 and there are 57 vacant posts, and that appointments should have been made on regular basis but the posts are being filled in on temporary basis for extraneous considerations and the petitioners are entitled to be regularised against these posts.
(21) The plea of the respondents is that the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis for particular durations and under project scheme funded by outside agencies and their terms of appointment came to end by afflux of time and they having been engaged on temporary projects not claim any right for regularisation of their services. It is also contended that there are no regular cadre posts of S.R.As. and the posts of S.R.As. have been created for various projects funded by outside agencies only as explained in their counter affidavit and additional affidavits. Reliance has been placed on Director, Institute of Management and Development. U.P. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava. , (1) Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration & Others. J.T. (1992(1) Sc 304. (2) Dhirer der Chimoli Vs. State of U.P. and Satya Narain Sharma & Others Vs. National Mineral Development Corporation (22) It has also been contended that a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and termination of his services simplicitor in teams of the contract of service is permissible in law. Reliance has been placed on State of U.P. Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla and State of U.P. Vs. Prem Lata Mishra . (6).
(23) The petitioners have admitted in the writ petition that the predominant objectives of Institute are to provide instructions and research in various branches of Engineering and Technology, Science and Art and in the advancement of learning and dissemination of knowledge in such branches. The institute has various departments and centers.
(24) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 inter-alia it has been stated in paras on preliminary objections as under :- (1)The primary function of the Institute is to impart higher technical education of international standard. In addition. the Institute also takes up various industrial research projects at the request of outside funding agencies including the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources etc. and various other government departments of the Government of India and also Thrust Area Research Projects which are funded by Government of India through Ministry of Human Resources Development. (2) That for the purpose of imparting higher education the Institute has a faculty and subordinate staff for carrying out the functions. The Institute has created a separate section known as I.R.D. Section i.e. Industrial Research and Development Section in the Institute to organise and coordinate the running of such projects funded by outside agencies. (3) The persons engaged on different projects are not the employees of the Institute, for they are neither appointed nor engaged to any cadre post of the Institute, for that purpose they are engaged on contractual and temporary basis till the project can continue and the funds are given by the outside agencies. It is also stipulated in the terms of engagement/appointment that the engagement/appointment shall be terminated on one month's notice. (4) That the petitioners in the present case were appointed on contractual basis, on temporary appointments/engagements, on specified projects with clear stipulation that their engagement/ appointment shall come to an end on expiry of the time for which such appointments are made and also with the stipulation that the same can be terminated by one month's notice. Petitioners knowing fully well the nature of their appointment/engagement and the consequences of the terms of engagement/appointment had accepted the appointments and that they are not entitled to claim regularisation against any cadre posts of the Institute. (5) The various research and development projects come to an end on conclusion of the project or when no funds are made available by the outside funding agencies. Continuation of various research projects is also dependent on priority of the research area of the project which is decided by the outside funding agencies from time to time. (6) The petitioners are now engaged against projects funded by the Government of India for specified periods and the jobs allotted to them have been completed and there is no work left for them in these projects. Their appointments were extended from year to year and has come to an end by afflux of time. They were not appointed against any regular posts on temporary or regular basis.
(25) It is also stated in the additional affidavit dated 21-11-1995 that the S.R.A. is not a regular cadre post in the Institute.
(26) This factual position as given in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent is supported from the documents especially document Annexure P. 28, i.e. the advertisement for appointment to the post of S.R.As. produced by the petitioners themselves. There is no reason to disbelieve this part of the case of the respondents that temporary ad-hoc posts of S.R.As. have been created to work on various projects undertaken by the Institute as part of the functions of the Institute to equip scholars in academic and research work on projects undertaken by the Institute. Such projects are funded by outside agencies including Government, public and private. Obviously projects available will be of different nature, of different duration and needing different knowledge, training and aptitude and obviously different hands will be required for such projects, on ad-hoc/temporary basis. The Institute is of national importance. By the very nature of its ^ objects and functions more and more persons have to be given opportunity to derive higher education with benefits of specialised education and training with research work available in the Institute. The Institute will not be able nor is expected to provide regular employment within its means to each and every such trainee and research scholar. Its further functions will be hampered at any given time if all such persons are absorbed in regular employment by the Institute. There would also be constraints of finance required to run the Institute as the funds are not unlimited and it is financed mainly by aids, grants or fees etc. (27) The advertisement No. 2190 (E-1) for appointment of S.R.As. (Annexure P-28) itself provides that the candidates were required to be appointed against various projects assignments on contract basis for the duration of the projects only. The petitioners had responded to it, applied, appeared for interview and were selected and given offers of appointment for project assignments purely on temporary and contractual basis specifically notified in the offers of appointment. They obviously accepted appointments with such terms. It is not the case of the petitioners nor it can be believed that they were not appointed on those projects as contemplated in the advertisement Annexure P-28. Having accepted the engagement on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letters of offers of appointment and having accepted extension of employment on those very terms, they can not be heard to take somersault now that they were appointed against regular posts that they be regularised against any cadre posts in the Institute. It is also not the case of the petitioners that their services are any longer reaquired on the projects against which they were appointed. Obviously, no funds will be available on those projects after the projects are completed.. When the project is completed or closed due to non-availability of funds, the employees have to go with its closure. (State of Hp Vs. Nodha Ram & Ors. J.T. 1996 (1) Sc 220.).
(28) In Director Institute of Management Development U.P Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, the appellant Institute was established inter-alia with the objects of undertaking applied scientific industrial management research. The respondent was appointed in that Institute as Research Executive on the consolidated and fixed compensation amount of Rs. 1250 per month on contract basis for a period of 3 months purely on ad-hoc basis liable for termination without any notice on either side This period was extended by 3 months on the same terms and conditions. On 28th January, 1989 a fresh, order was made appointing her as Training Executive on contract basis for a period of three months on consolidated pay of Rs. 1500 again on purely ad hoc basis liable to termination without notice" on either side. On 28th June, 1989 she was appointed on a newly created post of Executive carrying a pay-scale of Rs. 770-1600. This appointment was also on ad hoc basis for a period of six months and terminable at one month's notice on either side On 5th January, 1990 another ad hoc appointment was made for a period of three months. She was, however, continued beyond this prescribed period. On 13th July, 1990 she submitted resignation letter which was accepted. However, on her further request to continue she was appointed on contract basis as Training Executive on consolidated compensation of Rs. 2400 per month on ad hoc basis terminable without notice, and in the meantime post of Research Executive was also abolished.
(29) Before the end of the last term she filed writ petition in the High Court inter-alia with the plea the there was no justification for not giving her a regular or permanent appointment after she was compelled to submit her resignation and thereafter was given permanent consolidated salary and there was need for continuing the post. She succeeded 'in the High Court with the direction that she be put back on duty and her services he regularised within 3 months. In appeal by the Institute the "Supreme Court reversed that order and it was held that: "When the Institute abolished the post because of the financial constraints, the High Court was incorrect in giving the direction for putting her back and regularisation of her services."' In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union case, the petitioners were employed on daily wages basis under Jawahar Rojgar Yoina by District Rural Development Agency (for short DRDA). The scheme was meant for rural poor and not to provide the right to- work. The employees claimed full employment with equal pay in equal work. The Supreme Court held that: ''FORregularisation, there must be a regular and permanent post or it must be established that although the work is of regular and permanent nature. The device of appointing and keeping the worker on ad hoe or temporary basis has been resorted to, to deny them the legitimate benefits of permanent employment.'"
It was held that the petitioners could not claim regularisation.
(30) It is thus clear that the temporary engagement/appointment to a particular tenure post or on project post of limited duration does not create any right for regular appointment of a person and such engagement will come to an end by afflux of time on the expiry of the tenure or on the completion of the project. This is also the case of the petitioners. Petitioners were appointed purely on ad hoc temporary basis and as such they are not entitled to be regularised as regular Senior Research Assistants.
(31) It is then contended that all the temporary employees of the Institute are being confirmed in pursuance of established policy of the Institute as adopted in resolution No. 24j74 and again reaffirmed in Resolution No. 80-94185 by the Board of Governors. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that these resolutions are not applicable to the posts of S.R.As. held by petitioners who are not appointed against regular posts and ' that vide another Resolution the posts of S.R.As. have been specifically excluded.
(32) As held above the petitioners were appointed on ad hue and temporary basis on project posts and not against any regular cadre post, permanent or temporary. They cannot claim benefit of these resolutions.
(33) Vide resolution No. BG;94,85 it was resolved as under:- "RESOLVED that the confirmation of the temporary employees at the Institute, be regulated in accordance with Government of India Rules after they have put in a minimum of one year service against available post at the same or higher level."
(34) This resolution was considered as item No. 14 in the 84th meeting held on 16th April, 1986 and its application to S.R.As, was excluded vide Resolution No. BG/38/86.
(35) In the note placed before the Board of Governors (Annexure P-2) it was explained as under: "84THMeeting of the Board of Governors 16th April 1986' Item No. 14 : To clarify whether or not Bog Resolution No. BG/94/85 is applicable to the incumbents of the positions of Sra and Research Associates. The Board of Governors in its meeting held on 23-9-1985 decided that persons appointed at the Institute on temporary basis may be confirmed in accordance with the Government of India rules after they have put in a minimum of I year service, against available post at the same or higher level, vide Resolution No. BG/94/85 reproduced below :- "Resolved that the confirmation of the temporary employees at the Institute, be regulated in accordance with the Government of India rules, after they have put in a minimum of one year service, against available posts at the same or higher level". Institute, inter-alia, has positions of Senior Research Assistants and R.A. The position of Sra carries a pay scale of Rs. 550-900 and that of R.A. is on fixed monthly remuneration. These positions are created on permanent basis. However, as a matter of policy, appointments to the position of Sra have been made on temporary basis since the very inception of the Institute. All the S.R.As. are expected to register themselves for Ph.D. at the Institute in an area pertaining to their work by applying to the BuGs after obtaining administration clearance of the Institute as per rules. Their appointment is made on temporary basis for a period of one year in the first instance and its term is extended further on year to year basis till the concerned Sra has completed his Ph.D. The appointment is made as above for the purpose of giving them an opportunity to undertake some regular Institute work also while working towards their Ph.D. and so far none of the SEAS has been made substantive in their appointment. Normally after a Sra has completed his Ph.D. his term of temporary appointment is not extended except in very rare cases when his services are needed, beyond the date of completion of Ph.D. for certain specific work of a research project on which lie is engaged. A few SEAS who have either not registered themselves for Ph.D. or have given up their Ph.D. registration have also been appointed on purely temporary basis for specific periods for specific activities like Research Project, Review Committee set up by the visitors, or planning unit of the Institute. The R.A. are also appointed on temporary basis. The minimum qualification for appointment on Ra is Ph.D. R.As. are appointed only to enable fresh Ph.Ds. for continuing their research work till they are able to find regular jobs. Accordingly, they too are made permanent in their appointment. It is felt that from the very nature of their appointments, the Sra and R.A. would not be covered under the aforesaid Resolution of the Board of Governors which provides that all persons appointed on temporary basis would be considered for being made substantive in their appointment against available vacancies at the same level or at higher level after they have put in a service of one year. The matter is. therefore, submitted to the B.C. for consideration and deciding whether these positions may be treated as exempt from the purview of the above Resolution from the date came into operation, i.e., 23-9-85."
The Board of Governors passed resolution No. BG/38/86 thereon (Annexure P. 3) as Under: "RESOLLUTIONNo. BG/38/86 Resolved that provision of Bog Resolution No. BG/94/85 shall not be applicable to the incumbent of the posts of Senior Research Assistants and Research Associates. Resolved further that the appointments to these posts in future be made on contract basis for a period ranging from 1 to 3 years depending upon the merits of each case."
The Board of Governors is competent to take such a decision and no fault can be found with this power exercised by the Board of Governors. In fact what was implicit was made explicit by the Board of Governors in as much as Senior Research Assistants appointed on project posts on ad-hoc basis and for temporary periods were not entitled to claim regularisation in the Institute. Moreover, all the petitioners were appointed in the Institute after this resolution was passed. Knowing fully well the nature of their appointment they cannot now be heard to say that they may be regularised in the Institute.
(36) In Satish Chander Anand Vs. the Union of India a civil servant who had been engaged on the basis of a special contract for a certain term was. on the expiry of the term, re-appointed by a further contract on a temporary basis. In accordance with the Government Rules which formed part of the contract he was discharged from service after notice. He filed petition under Article 32(1) seeking redress for breach of his fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16(1) and 311. It was held: "(1)That Article 311 had no application because there was neither a dismissal nor a removal from service, nor reduction in rank. As Article 311 had no application no question of discrimination arose. (2) Article 16(1) was equally inapplicable. The petitioner had not been denied any opportunity of employment or of appointment. He had been treated just like any other person to whom an offer of temporary employment was made. There can be no grievance against an offer of temporary employment on specific terms as opposed to permanent employment. (3) There was no compulsion of the petitioner to enter into the contract he did. Having accepted the offer. he still had open to him all the rights and remedies available to other persons similarly situated to enforce any rights under his contract which had been denied to him; assuming there were any and to pursue in the ordinary courts of the land such remedies for a breach. The remedy of a writ was misconceived."
The petitioners in the circumstances are not in better position and so are not justified in resorting to the remedy under writ jurisdiction under.
(37) The position regarding the demand of Senior Research Assistants for permanent appointment/regularisation at the Institute was examined by the Senate Sub Committee of appointment of Senior Research Assistants and its report as accepted by the ECs. in its 58th meeting minutes had inter-alia made the following recommendations (Annexure P-7) : "REPORT of the Senate sub-committee on appointment of Senior Research Assistants as accepted by the ECs in its 58th Meeting. 1. "The Committee noted that as per provisions of Rationalisation Committee the posts of Sra, Sta and Ssa are clubbed with the prescribed duties and responsibilities for all three cadres of posts being listed together as under : "To assist in the laboratories, in workshops, drawing office, to design, to manufacture, to set up, to maintain, to operate, to arrange minor repairs to laboratory and. other appliances and to assist research work". 2. The cadre of Sra may continue to be classified as "academic" as at present. 3. All posts of Sra that have been created against non-plan funds of the Institute and have presently been notified against individual departments/centers may be pooled together and released for definite period for individual activities against specific requests from the faculty. Twice a year, say during the months of May and November, the faculty of the Institute may be invited to submit, through their respective Professional Committees, requests for release of a Sra post from the Institute pool. The request must be accompanied by a specific proposal of research development nature and an estimate of the time period for which the services of the Sra are needed. All requests received by the due date may be scrutinised by a Standing Committee consisting of the DD(F)-Chairman, Dean PGS&R and Deen Ird who may submit after scrutiny specific recommendations for the release of posts against individual proposals for the consideration and approval of the Director. After necessary approval the processing for recruitment against approved posts may be done as per statutory provisions. 5. Each person appointed as a Sra may be appointed on contract to work on a specific project. The maximum tenure of the contract may be 3 years, however. initially only a one year contract be given. Subject to submission of an annual report and on recommendation of the faculty guide the contract may be renewed one year at a time for the second and third years. 6.All SEAS may be given administrative clearance. on request, to seek admission for the Ph.D. degree programme at the Institute after, they have served as Sra for one year. 7. A second contract normally with a tenure of 2 years but with a proviso for extension for a 3rd year under special circumstances may be given after due assessment by an Assessment Committee, whose composition is the same as that of a Statutory Selection Committee for the post of Sra, to those SEAS who are registered for the Ph.D. degree of the Institute and have been recommended by their research Supervisors for a second contract. Those SEAS not registered for Ph.D. degree of the Institute as well as those who complete requirements for the Ph.D. degree or are awarded the Ph.D. degree during the period of the initial contract will not be eligible for a second contract. 8. Subject to submission of an annual report and on recommendation of the Research Supervisor the second contract may be renewed for the second year. Normally no Sra will be given extension beyond the second year, however, if the services of a particular Sra are needed for the purpose of transfer to the market place of the technology generated during the course of the work or for consolidating the work in the form of publications, the second contract may be renewed for the 3rd year of for a part thereof to enable completion of the work. The period of extension beyond the second year is not intended for completion of the Ph.D. degree and therefore, a case for extension may only be considered in the event the concerned Sra has submitted his Ph.D. thesis. 9. The existing norms for salary fixation may continue to be applicable."
(38) These recommendations were approved by the Board of Governors in its 98th meeting held on 17-8-1989 vide resolution No. BG/78/89 (Annexure P. 8) which reads as under :- "RESOLUTIONNo. BG/78/89 : Resolved that the Institute Cadre of Senior Research Assistant be de-clubbed from that of STA/SSA. Resolved Further That the cadre of Sra will continue to be temporary. Resolved Further That, in supersessions of earlier decisions on the subject. the SEAS be assigned the following responsibilities : "To assist the faculty in their research, hardware and software development activities including preparation of Av and multi-media software and to simultaneously undergo training for research career". Resolved Further That the recommendations of the Senate sub-committee on appointment of SEAS as modified and appended as Appendix-P, be accepted for implementation in the Institute."
The Board of Governors was competent to take such decisions and no fault can be found in the same. The petitioners were appointed after this decision was taken and obviously in accordance with this decision of the Board. They are bound by it and cannot be heard to take stand contrary to it.
(39) Great stress has been laid on the fact that in the annual budget estimate of the year 1991-92 (as on 15-7-1991) the strength of SEAS in the Institute is shown as under : Sanctioned strength In position Vacancies 91 34 57 On behalf of respondent it has been stated that these are project posts which are to be included in the budget estimate of every year. This figure varies even' year according to the requirement of SEAS on projects.
(40) In reply affidavit dated 11-12-1995 in paras 6 & 7 it has been explained that from the very inception of the Institute there is no regular cadre of Sra and S.R.As. are appointed/engaged in the projects on temporary contractual basis and there is. however, no regular cadre of the Sra in the Institute. It is, further explained that earlier it was the discretion of the head of the project to determine how many S.R.As. are required to assist him in research work out of funds provided by the funding agencies. However, after the year 1988. i.e., after policy decisions on 27-1-1988 every department/centers of the Institute which is working on any research project is required to indicate the number of SEAS needed in that year on the basis of need of every project in that year which is being reflected in the Budget Estimates of the Institute. There is no regular cadre of the SEAS. in the Institute.
(41) Obviously, since SEAS are appointed to work on projects undertaken by the Institute, there will be a particular number of SEAS required or in position in a particular year which would be reflected in the budget estimates of the year and the figures relied by the petitioners would obviously be those S.R.As. engaged on the Projects, and this figure may very according to the extent of project work in hand in any particular year. This is also obvious from the budget estimates of subsequent years where the figures are as under : Year Sanctioned Strength In position Vacancies 1994-95 89 45 44 1995-96 70 48 22 This clearly shows that there are no regular posts sanctioned for SEAS in the Institute and it is the requirement of projects that determines the number of SEAS required.
(42) It is then contended that the petitioners have been given all the benefits like increments, accommodation and contributory provident fund and other service benefits which are permissible to regular employees and for this reason also they are for all purposes treated as employees of the Institute. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that appointments of the petitioners were made against project posts temporarily and for the duration of the projects.
(43) Simply because they are given the benefits which are available to regular employees will not make them regular employees of the Institute in the circumstances noticed above.
(44) For the reasons given above in our view this writ petition is wholly unjustified and has no merits. The same is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000. Stay granted is vacated.