C.S.I.R & ORS. versus RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1378 · Decided: 19-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1378 
C.S.l.R. & ORS. 
v. 
RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1716 of 2004) 
DECEMBER 19, 2008 
[S;B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Regularization/absorption - Claim of - Scheme for 
C absorption of researchers in CSIR Laboratotiesllnstitutes -
Framing of, pursuant to directions by Supreme Court -
Scheme envisaging that full time researchers in CSIR to 
have put in 15 years or more of research work - Fixation of 
cut of date and director conferred power of relaxation of 
D conditions - Selection of few researchers in terms thereof -
However, non-regularization of services of applicants-
researchers - Scheme, challenge "to - Held: Scheme was 
one-time measure - Cut off date fixed is rational - It has 
nexus with the date Supreme Court directed CSIR to consider 
framing of regularization scheme - Fixing of 15 years of 
E scientific research work as eligibility criteria reasonable as 
large number of persons found eligible - Inclusion of service 
rendered in Quick Hire Scheme also permissible - Doctrine 
of legitimate expectation not applicable to applicants - They 
did not have a legal right to be appointed_- Constitution of 
F India, 1950.- Articles 14, 16 and 226. 
Regularization -
When permissible· -
Held: 
Regularization is not a mode of recruitment- It does not mean 
permanence - Irregularity can be regularized, not illegality. 
Relaxation/modification/amendment, of conditions of 
G regularization scheme - Grant of- Power- Held: Relaxation 
can be granted only when there exists a provision therefore 
- If provision is circumscribed by conditions, those conditions 
must be fulfilled - Ordinarily, court would not interfere, with 
such discretionary power. 
H 
1378 
.,. I 
( "' 
' -
( -. 
/ 
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 
1379 
ANR. 
Administrative Law: Legitimate expectation -
A 
Applicability of - To cases where applicants are seeking 
regularization/absorption - Held: There has to be a basis far 
giving effect to doctrine of legitimate expectation- It is based 
on principles of natural justice and not on mere anticipation. 
As regards absorption/regularization of Researchers B 
in CSIR Laboratories/Institutes, this Court on 02.05.2007 
issued directions to the appellants to consider framing, 
of a regularization scheme. In pursuance thereof,, 
Scheme for Absorption of Researchers in CSIR, 
Laboratories/Institutes, 1997 was framed for absorption/' C 
regularization of researchers at suitable levels who had' 
put in 15 years or more of research work in CSIR 
Laboratories/Institutes. The cut of date was fixed as 
02.05.2007. The Director General was given the power to. 
relax/modify/amend any of the conditions of the Scheme. · 
Pursuant thereto, 51 persons applied and eight of them · D 
were selected. However, the respondents were not given · 
the application form. Aggrieved, respondents filed 
application and the tribunal dismissed the same. 
Respondents then filed writ petitions. High Court held . 
that ordinary tenure of researchers· in the posts Junior · E 
Research Fellows/Senior Research Fellows/Research 
Associates/Senior Research Associates being 5+5+3=13 
years, the condition of 15 years of service is arbitrary; 
that Quick Hire Service-a stopgap arrangement against 
a post/vacancy of the scientist, to make regular F 
appointment having been taken into consideration in the 
case of some of the applicants~ was discriminatory in 
nature; that the cut off date being 02.05.1997 is 
unreasonable; and that the Director General having been 
conferred with the general power of relaxation, his 
decision not to consider the case of any candidate G 
whatsoever who had not worked for a period of 15 years 
of continuous research was arbitrary. Hence the present 
appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
H 
1380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 17 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD:1.1. The terms and cqr:iditions fixing the tenure 
for Junior and Senior Research· Fellows and Research 
Associates limiting the period of tenure.to five years had 
been brought into force only w.~.f. 1.1.1990. Prior thereto, 
the period was five years in each"po~t which would mean 
8 that one could work for 20. years. Apart from CSIR, 
research work done in other institutions is alsp taken into 
consideration. It would include. the period Qf fellOW$hip 
by UGC/DST/ICMR/ICAR etc. If itecision as regards tenure 
was taken as in its affidavit ~efore the High Court, the 
appellant contended that more. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.