Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. It is further submitted by the respondents that the contractual trainee Scientists were sought to be regularized in 2011 as Scientist „C‟ without making an open advertisement for the same, which is illegal and against the rules, and casts aspersion of mala fide upon the applicant. It is stated that on the aforesaid action taken by the applicant, a complaint was received in 2013 from one S.K. Prasad pointing out irregularities in the appointment of trainee Scientists ignoring the reservations policy and flouting the recruitment rules. Thereafter, a Fact Finding Committee [FCC] was constituted to look into the complaint of irregular appointment of Scientists in CSIR on 21.04.2014, which met on various dates. FCC, after examining the relevant records and hearing the complainant as also the applicant, submitted its report on 02.06.2014, which was forwarded on 09.06.2014 to the Cabinet Secretary. The aforesaid report, after having been considered by the Group of Secretaries, headed by the Cabinet Secretary, was sent to the DoP&T for its advice, which, after examining the advice of CVC, tendered the following advice, vide OM dated 24.11.2014:-

21. The respondents further stated that the recruitment process was vitiated due to irregularities noticed in the recruitment process as no open advertisement was floated, which was necessary under Rule 6.45 of CSRAP Rules, 2001. Instructions on reservation were also not followed. The respondents further argued in the aforesaid OAs that the main controversy involved in those cases was whether trainee Scientists under QHS could be directly absorbed as Scientists in CSIR dispensing with the requirement of issue of an advertisement in terms of CSRAP Rules, 2001.

"...We therefore find merit in the contention of the respondents that this was against the CSRAP Rules. In public employment every candidate possessing the necessary qualifications laid down for the post has a right to be considered for appointment to the said post. By not issuing the advertisement as provided under the Rules and keeping the recruitment confined only to candidates of PGRPE programme, the respondents had deprived many candidates, who could have otherwise applied for these posts. Even in the advertisement by which the applicants were engaged as Trainee Scientists, the only promise made was that they shall be considered for absorption in CSIR as Scientists. No where, it was mentioned that the consideration would be exclusively confined to them. Since in the instant case this was exactly done, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in cancelling these appointments".

10. In these circumstances, we do not think that the petitioners are right in pleading that they have acquired a vested right on successful completion of PGRPE Diploma with distinction.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. We clarify that the observations made above are only in respect of the present petitioners and will not be construed as observations regarding the pending enquiry, in respect of appointments of the 2009 batch. We also clarify that this order will not bar and prohibit the petitioners or other Trainee Scientists, who have successfully completed the programme with distinction, from applying for posts of Scientist 'C' in the CSIR in terms of Rule 6.5. Furthermore, we do not modify or erase any other direction issued by the Tribunal to the CSIR.