Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A. Dean, School of Environment Sciences (SES) B. Dean, School of Life Sciences (SLS) C. Chairperson, Centre of Bio-technology (CBT) D. Director, Genetic Engineering Unit (GEU) E. Director, Centre for Plant and Molecular Biology (CPMB).

After discussing various options the Committee arrived at a general consensus that GEU should be merged with SLS as an autonomous Centre in accordance with the University structure and Ordinances.

It was further unanimously opined that the infrastructural facilities of the GEU should be made available to all faculties of the Science Schools and its Special Centres. The Committee also decided to recommend to Respondent No.1 to take over three faculty positions, viz. Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. It was further decided that these positions should be taken over by the University and the staff already working in GEU would have to apply afresh and face Selection Committees for regularisation of their services.

16. Once we arrive at the conclusion that GEU was a Project and its existence was not permanent but depended upon the funding by the DBT, the petitioners working in such a Project cannot claim the relief of regularisation. By the very nature of their appointments, it is clear that it was on temporary ad hoc basis and such appointment was extended from time to time only because of the extensions were given to continue the Project. Ultimately Project itself having come to an end on 31.3.1998, the question of regularisation of the petitioners in the said Project does not arise. The principle of promissory estoppel also is not applicable in the instant case as no promise was given to the petitioners that GEU would become part of JNU. Indepth probe into this aspect, exposed the weaknesses of the stand taken by the petitioners. The details given by the respondent in the counter-affidavit and the rejoinder which are extracted above would clearly show that the matter in this respect was duly examined by JNU by constituting different Committees and there was a proposal for making GEU a part of JNU. However, ultimately the decision which was taken was that it would remain a Project. This was the policy decision of the respondents and if the respondents ultimately took decision not to make the said Project as permanent or part of the JNU, it was their policy decision and this Court cannot given directions to the respondents to act in one way or the other. It may be noticed that even in the meetings of the Committees where it was recommended initially that once the University takes over GEU and maintain this as an autonomous unit, the recommendation include that the staff working in GEU would have to apply afresh and face Selection Committee for regularisation of their services. Thus, even if JNU were to ultimately make GEU as its part, there was no promise held that the petitioners would be regularised automatically. On the contrary they were to apply afresh and face Selection Committee for regularisation of their services. Moreover, it cannot be said that believing on the alleged assurances, petitioners acted to their prejudice. Thus the principle of Promissory Estoppel is not at all attracted in the instance case.

17. The Supreme Court in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, UP Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava has held that such employees who were working on Project are not entitled for regularisation and their services can be terminated once project comes to an end. To the same effect is the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of V.P. Chaturvedi Vs. UOI & Ors., . Following this judgement this Court has held in the case of Dr. Sheila Roy & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. 1993 (3) Delhi Lawyer 9(DB) that adhoc apointments for duration of Projects does not vest any right for regularisation. It would be apt to quote the following observations from this judgement: