JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY versus SMT. T. SUMALATHA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 401 · Decided: 11-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

JAW AHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLd~ICAL UNIVERSITY 
A 
v. 
SMT. T. SUMALA THA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 11, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Regularization-Appointment made on consolidated pay-By University 
at Nodal Centre under a scheme of Central Government-Funding and C 
supervision of the Nodal Centre by Central Government-Claim for 
regularization-Granted by Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court 
on the basis of State Government G.O. holding the Nodal Centre to be an 
agency of the Government-On appeal held: State Government G. 0. wrongly 
applied-The G.O. was not intended to cover the employees engaged in the D 
Nodal Centre which for all practical purposes acts as a wing of Central 
Government-Hence, regularization not justified-However, direction issued 
for increase in the consolidated salary. 
Under a scheme known as National Technical Manpower 
Information System sponsored by Government of India, Nodal Centre was E 
set up in the appellant-University. The scheme contemplated deployment 
of Postgraduate Engineering students in Nodal Centres during vacation. 
As the students were riot available, respondent Nos. l to 4 were recruited 
at the Nodal Centre in appellant-University on consolidated pay. 
Respondent No.5 was appointed as Attender-cum-Sweeper on daily wages 
basis. Later she was placed on consolidated pay. Their appointments were F 
renewed from time to time. 
Respondents filed writ petition before High Court seeking direction 
to regularize their services and to accord them regular pay scales. High 
Court allowed the writ petition directing the University to regularise their G 
services if they had completed three years of service and were qualified 
and the posts were advertised by the University. State Government was 
also directed to take final decision on the proposal of the University to 
create additional posts. On review, Single Judge, relying on G.O. M.S. 
401 
H 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A No.212 (Finance and Planning) issued by State Government held that by 
virtue of the G.O. which was applicable to the University employees as 
well, respondents 1 to 3 and 5 who had completed more than 5 years of 
service were liable to be regularized. Regarding 4th respondent who had 
not completed 3 years of service, it directed the University to send proposal 
B tll State Government for creation of an additional post In writ appeal, 
Division Bench of High Court affirmed the judgment of Single Judge 
observing that all the employments in the institute, whether grant comes 
from the State or Central Government, are employments in the Institute 
which is an agency of the State Government and thus all Government 
orders intended to apply to such agency of the State Government have to . 
C be applied to it. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. High Court fell into error in applying GO No.212 dated 
22.4.1994 to the case of the writ petitioners. The observations of the 
D Division Bench that the Nodal Centre is an agency of the State 
Government, is obviously without factual and legal basis. The terms and 
features of the scheme unmistakably indicates that the University- Centre 
of excellence chosen by the Ministry of Education, acts for and on behalf 
of Government of India and the Nodal Centre is nothing but the reflection 
of Central Government acting through the media of University. The entire 
E funding is done by the Central Government and the Nodal Centre 
functions under the overall supervision and guidance of the Lead Centre 
attached to the Ministry of Education. Even the details of expenditure 
including the payments to be made to the staff of various categories are 
spelt out in the ~cheme as well as in the orders releasing the annual grants. 
F There is, therefore, an obvious fallacy in the reasoning of the High Court 
that the 'institute' (Nodal Centre) acts as an agency of the State 
Government. The State Government does not come into the picture at all. 
By .virtue of the last para of the GO the State Government does not assume 
the responsibility of absorbing the staff employed in the organizations or 
establishments with which it has no administrative or financial nexus, 
G merely because an instrumentality of the State is involved in managing it. 
H 
No directions should have been issued to the State Government or to the 
University to regularize the services of respondents 1 to 5, if necessary, 
b

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