Civil Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1994 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1994 Date of Decision: 17.11.2008 Ramesh Kumar and Others …Petitioners Versus Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mrs. Anju Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.3. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed by 32 Research Assistants who are working on different projects, which are funded by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as “ICAR”). By filing the writ petition, they have sought a direction that order (Annexure P2) be modified to the extent it deprived the Research Associates from admissibility of Dearness Allowance at part with other teaching staff of the respondent-University. It was further prayed that the Civil Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1994 2 University be directed to frame a scheme for absorption of the petitioners against the regular posts of Assistant Professors and Assistant Scientists as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court referred in the petition. The appointment letter issued to one of the petitioner, especially petitioner No.3 M.L.Chhabra show that he was appointed in the project “Side Effects of Pesticides on V-A Mycorrhizal Model System”. Similarly petitioner No. 6 Raj Bahadur was appointed on a project “Evaluation Studies of Alternate Tree and Bush Species for Farm Forestry”. It is not disputed that the petitioners were appointed on the specified projects. What is disputed before me by Mrs. Anju Arora, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners is that their appointment was not co- terminus with the project. It goes without saying that the petitioners were appointed in the project till the project is continuing. Once the research is ended, project will come to an end and services of the petitioners may not be required. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate, appearing for the University has relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Jatinder Kumar v. Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University Hisar and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 19383 of 2005). The above said writ petitoin was decided on 2.5.2006. It will be apposite here to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment, as under:- “Admittedly, on 18.12.200 the petitioner was appointed on contract basis in a project of the Civil Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1994 3 respondent-University known as “Crop Growth and Water Use Models to Improve Water Supply Situations. Again on 14.1.2003, the petitioner was appointed in the project of “Simulation Modelling “Approach for Micro-level water resources management in shallow ground water regions of Haryana State”. The petitioner was asked to be relieved from duty as the project came to an end on 31.12.2005. Respondent no.1 has filed a written statement. The respondent has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajender and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1999)2 SCC 317 wherein it has been held that when posts temporarily created for fulfilling the needs of a particular project or scheme limited in its duration comes to an end because the need for the project comes to end either because the need was fulfilled or the project had to be abandoned wholly or partially for want of funds, the employer cannot by a writ in the nature of Mandamus be directed to continue employing such employees. This part, the Supreme Court has laid down the law with regard to regularisation of services of the contract employee in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi JT 2006(4) SC 420. In view of the Civil Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1994 4 above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Dismissed. No costs”. Relying upon this judgment, learned Single Bench of this Court decided a similar case titled as Rakesh Kumar v. C.C.S. HAU and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 14665 of 2005 decided on 5.3.2007. This judgment has also noticed not only the above said observations of a Division Bench rendered in Jatinder Kumar's case (supra) but also noticed a resolution attached by the respondent- University wherein it was decided that Research Associates be adjusted by creating diminishing cadre. Having noticed that learned Single Judge of this Court held that service of the petitioner therein is co- terminus with the project. This decision was assailed in Rakesh Kumar v. C.C.S. HAU and Others (Letters Patent Appeal No. 78 of 2007). While deciding the Letters Patent Appeal, Division Bench of this Court not only upheld the decision of learned Single Bench but also held as under:- “The decision in Rajendra and others, case (Supra), no doubt makes a direction while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners in that case to the effect that in the event of any additional posts being created in future due to some new schemes/programmes being introduced, the petitioners may be given preference according to their seniority, subject to eligibility after giving relaxation of age in view of the service rendered by each one of them in the DRDAs. That observation, Civil Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1994 5 may not, however, justify a similar direction in the instant case having regard to the fact that learned Single Judge has recorded a clear finding that employment of the petitioner-appellant was purely contractual in nature and was to be coterminous with the life of project work in connection with which he was engaged. That view was, in our opinion, perfectly justified and legally unexceptionable for the employment in question being purely contractual in nature and limited to the period for which the project in question was under implementation, could not entitle the petitioner to either continue in service or regularization in the absence of any substantive vacancy available for such regularization. Having said so, we are of the view that the petitioner- appellant would be entitled to be considered for any future employment in connection with any future project which the university may envisage or formulate, based on his merit and suitability as also the experience that he may have acquired in connection with similar other work done by him in connection with other projects. Even that would be permissible only by considering the petitioner’s claim together with the claims of all other eligible candidates for any such employment. In so far as relaxation of age is concerned, there is nothing Civil Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1994 6 before us to suggest that any future project would have any age bar for employment of Research Associate. All that we need say in that regard is that in case there is any age bar prescribed for employment of Research Associate, the competent authority shall be free to consider the relaxation of such age bar in appropriate cases including in the case of the petitioner herein. With these observation, this appeal is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs”. An appointment made to the project till the conclusion of project is contractual in nature. Therefore, the incumbent Research Associate cannot be allowed to continue in case some further project is awarded to the University. The qualification, experience of each person who apply for any project deserve in future is to be considered by the Selection Committee on merits. No vested right is created in a person who on contract has been engaged for a limited purpose. Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has further stated that the ratio of judgment rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others Judgment Today 2006(4) SC 420 will not apply ipso-facto to the petitioners as they have rendered more than ten years of service in various projects. She further submits that they are required to be absorbed by the respondent- University. It has been further stated that they were selected for that project, through requisite selection process and, therefore, they cannot Civil Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1994 7 be dubbed as a back door entry. I am afraid that this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Each project require different qualification and experience. Selection for one project will not necessarily mean that one is qualified for another project also. Therefore, this argument is not accepted. As for the second prayer for granting of dearness allowance is concerned, it has been denied to the petitioners on the ground that as per their appointment letter they are not entitled to dearness allowance. They are not equated with the regular employees of the University as they are bound by the contract. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has also relied upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Jasbir Singh Hooda v. Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 1747 of 2006 decided on 29.8.2006). By placing reliance upon Jatinder Kumar's case (supra), a similar prayer of Research Associate has been declined. Another Division Bench judgment of this Court in case Dr. Nisha Sangwan v. Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 16918 of 2006 decided on 21.11.2006) considering judgment of Rajender and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1999)2 Supreme Court Cases 317 also dismissed the similar claim of the petitioners. A similar writ petition was also disposed off by another Division Bench of this Court in Anita Punia v. Chaudhary Cahran Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 18645 of 2005 decided on Civil Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1994 8 1.12.2006). A further reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court (Annexure P3) Gopal Krishan Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition Nos.16300-16376 of 1984 decided on 16.9.1992). In that case, taking into consideration ends of justice, Hon'ble the Apex Court worked out a consolidated salary and had allowed the monetary benefits. The ratio of this judgment is not applicable to the present case because the petitioners were bound by the letters of their appointment. Reliance has been also placed on a judgment rendered by this Court in Dr. V.L. Chandra and Others v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others 1990(1) Recent Services Judgments 838 and Dr. Prathibha Misra v. Union of India and Others. These judgments are on its own facts, and are not applicable to the present case. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Rajender's case (supra) on which reliance has been placed upon by various Division Benches of this Court, this argument is not available to the petitioners. I find no merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 17, 2008 “DK”