HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.4481 of 2010 Date: April 21, 2010 Between: Gutta Yadagiri, S/o. Narsimulu, Aged 25 years, Occ: Employee, R/o.H.No.8-32/1, Street No.2, Road No.2, Maruti Nagar, Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad … Petitioner And The Department of Mines & Technology, Represented by its Director, Hyderabad, And two others … Respondents Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned Letter No.9001/C01/1.2/40063/2009, dated 09-09-2009, and consequential letter dated 22-02-2010, issued by the third respondent-Chief Scientist and Project Director, Non- Ferrous Materials Technology Development Centre. 2. Non-Ferrous Materials Technology Development Centre (NFTDC) is an autonomous research and development institute under the aegis of Department of Mines, Government of India. The said institute conducts research and development programmes in advance materials, processes and project development for high technical sectors. It is not a grant-in-aid institution and is a self-financed research and development centre. As a part of its activity, the second respondent-institute has introduced certain fellowship awards called Project Associate-ship in line with junior and Senior Research fellowships. Project Associate-ship is a fellowship award and it carries a stipend unlike the post of scientist or other engineering-based posts. 3. The petitioner herein has completed his B. Tech course in Computer Science from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University in the year 2006. With effect from 25-05-2006, the petitioner was working in a project in Byrraju Foundation for doing his project work in developing applications for National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and self-help groups. At that point of time, pursuant to his application, the petitioner was interviewed on 01-12-2007 and vide Letter No.NFTDC/HRD/P.A./2008, dated 10-01-2008, was offered Project Associate award for a period of six months. In the said letter, it is clearly stated that Project Associate award is for a period of six months and further the petitioner will be offered Senior Project Associate for three years subject to clearance by the assessment board. Along with letter dated 10-01-2008, the second respondent-institute has given terms and conditions for Project Associate. From the terms and conditions which were communicated to the petitioner at the time of his entry into fellowship award, there was assurance only for a minimum period of 18 months so far as Project Associate-shop is concerned. After completion of 18 months, by further extending support, by paying stipend for a further period of six months, so as to look at other options outside the second respondent-institute, the petitioner was communicated with letter dated 09-09-2009, which is impugned in the writ petition. In the further communication dated 22-02-2010, the petitioner was informed to complete all formalities and also to collect required forms, for production of no-objection certificate. 4. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that there was an assurance for continuing him for Senior Project Associate award, subject to clearance by the assessment board and also further assurance to appoint him as Project Engineer for a period of five years, which is also subject to clearance by the assessment board. It is submitted that contrary to the terms and conditions, the impugned letters are issued dispensing his continuance for fellowship award, without giving him an opportunity for Senior Project Associate and Project Engineer. 5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents giving details of various programmes undertaken by the second respondent-institute and also the activities which the institute has undertaken in award of fellowship awards. It is stated in the counter affidavit that there are no grants and the second respondent- institute is a self-financing institute. 6. It is submitted by Sri Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that having admitted the petitioner to the fellowship award of Project Associate with an assurance to continue him as Senior Project Associate and Project Manager, respondents are discontinuing him, contrary to the terms and conditions of the appointment. It is further submitted that as per the offer letter, the petitioner is entitled to continue for a period of three years as Senior Project Associate and further period of five years as Project Manager in terms of his appointment and the orders issued by the impugned letters are contrary to the terms and conditions of his appointment. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by, Ms. G. Sudha, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 that the petitioner was not appointed to any post and is merely admitted to a programme, which is undertaken by the second respondent, which is an autonomous body under the aegis of Department of Mines, Government of India. It is stated that the petitioner was admitted only to Project Associate award for a period of six months, but in terms of appointment, he was supported with stipend for a period of eighteen months; even thereafter, as he has not completed the course, respondents themselves extended the support for a period of six months and the same is evident from the letter dated 09-09-2009. It is submitted that there is no appointment to any post, which gives right to the petitioner for continuation in the second respondent- institute, by admitting him to Senior Project Associate and Project Engineer programmes, as pleaded by him. 8. I have perused the letter of offer dated 10-01-2008 given to the petitioner, by which he was offered fellowship programme of Project Associate for a period of six months. In the said offer, it is merely stated that after successful completion of the programme, the petitioner has to attend interview for Senior Project Associate and subject to clearance by the assessment board, he will be offered Senior Project Associate, for a period of three years. Similarly, there was a communication that after completion of Senior Project Associate programme, as indicated, the petitioner will be admitted as Project Engineer, which is also subject to clearance by the assessment board. From a perusal of the offer of appointment and the terms and conditions for which the petitioner is admitted to the programme, there is no indication of appointment to any post, as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner is selected for the purpose of fellowship award, which is part of the programme offered by the second respondent-institute, by admitting him as Project Associate for the year 2008. There is no assurance as such for the period more than six months as per the letter of offer and the terms and conditions notified to him. Merely because it is stated that after completion of Project Associate award, he has to attend the interview and subject to clearance by the assessment board, he will be admitted to Senior Project Associate and further as Project Engineer, it cannot be construed as an assurance for appointment to the said programmes. In the letter dated 09-09-2009, reasons are stated for instructing the petitioner to look at other options outside the second respondent-institute. In the said letter itself, it is stated that the second respondent-institute is mainly concerned with materials, mechanical and electrical engineering fields; as such the role to be played by IT in the overall scheme of the second respondent-institute will remain somewhat static. As such, the petitioner was informed in his own interest for his career growth to look at other options outside the second respondent-institute. Further assistance is also communicated to support him with stipend for a further period of six months from the date of issuance of letter dated 09-09-2009. In view of the reasons recorded in the letter dated 09-09-2009, coupled with the terms of offer/appointment and the terms and conditions, this court is of the view that there is no assurance from the respondents for appointment of the petitioner to any award other than Project Associate. Admitting the petitioner into further programmes, namely, Senior Project Associate and Project Manager, is concerned; the same were conditional, subject to clearance by the assessment board. As much as the programme for which the petitioner is admitted cannot be equated to employment to any post, the action of the respondents in dispensing with his services from February 2008 cannot be found fault with. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the view that the impugned letters are in conformity with the letter of offer given to the petitioner and the terms and conditions notified to him. As such, there is no illegality committed by the respondents in issuing the impugned letters and there is no violation of either fundamental or statutory rights of the petitioner, so as to issue any directions as prayed for, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, with no costs. Needless to state that interim order dated 26-02-2010 stands vacated. ____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 21, 2010 MRR