POST-DOCTORAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES OF S.V. UNIVERSITY, DR. K. KRISHNA REDDY AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 492 · Decided: 26-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
POST-DOCTORAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES OF S.V. UNIVERSITY, 
DR. K. KRISHNA REDDY AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
B 
APRIL 26, 2002 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Appointment-Research Associates under Schemes of UGCICSIR-On 
contract basis for fixed tenure-Continuation/Regularisation-Held: Such 
Schemes by way of social welfare provide support to research fellows for a 
ftxed tenure only during unemployment to facilitate them to get a job and thus 
the Scheme is not faulty-Hence it would not be appropriate to direct the 
D framing of any Scheme for this purpose. 
Writ Petitioners are Post Doctoral Research Associates under the 
Schemes framed by the University Grants Commission/Council of Scientific 
"'· 
and Industrial Research for a period of 3 years initially which could be 
extended after evaluation by an expert Committee for a further period of one 
E or two years but total period not to exceed 5 years. However,. authoritjes 
helped them in getting job in University or Colleges but they were not 
designated as Lecturer and emoluments being paid to them bear no 
relationship to the existing Schemes in University. Petitioners prayed for 
continuation of Research Associateship to them. 
F 
It was contended for the petitioners that once the tenure of Research 
Associateship expired there was no evaluation as to the validity of the Research 
undertaken and whether expenditure so incurred was properly utilised or not; 
that the Schemes clearly indicated that Research Associates were treated as 
permanent; and that if job security was provided to them, they would be in 
G a position to find jobs and their services would be useful not only to the 
Industries but also to the nation. 
H 
It was contended for the UGC that the Research Associateship would 
not envisage the creation of any post or any other appointment; that the 
Scheme provided them post-doctoral experience; that UGC was not in favour 
492 
• 
·-' 
POST-DOCTORAL RES. ASSO. OF s.v. UNIVERSITY ,.u.o.r. 
493 
of conferring permanent status; that the Scheme was discontinued in June, A 
1998; and that the Research Scientist Scheme had built into it a permanency 
and equivalence with University teachers but the Research Associates Scheme 
did not contemplate permanency and equivalence with University teachers. 
On behalf of CSIR, it was contended that the object of the Scheme was 
to give placement to the Scientists on a temporary basis to facilitate them to B 
find out job on regular basis; and that only those Scientists who have put in 
15 years or more of research service on regular basis were made eligible in 
the light of the Judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Pratibha 
Mishra and Ors. v. CSIR, which was clarified by the Supreme Court in CSIR 
and Ors., v. Dr. Ajay Kr. Jain, [2000] 4 SCC 186. 
C 
Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Scheme evolved by UGC or CSIR is only a supportive 
programme for the research fellows during the period of unemployed initially 
for a period of five years. Such Scheme will allow research fellows who have D 
done their Ph.D. and have a waiting period of five years when they have got 
no jobs to keep them active in their work, facilities are provided to them to 
,carry on research on tenure basis. If that is so, it may not be accurate to state 
that is only to encourage research that these research fellows have been 
engaged and not by way of support to them during the period of their 
unemployment and if that aspect is borne in mind the UGC or the CSIR have E 
framed Scheme to give support to such candidates for a particular period 
during which they can obtain job in an appropriate University or institution 
or in any other organisation, it cannot be stated that such Scheme is faulty. 
It is more by way of a social welfare measure such action is being taken and 
not merely to promote scientific research which may be an incidental fallout F 
under the Scheme. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to direct any scheme 
being framed by the UGC or the CSIR in this regard. All that this Court can 
hope is that the UGC or the CSIR_would bear in mind research work done 
by these scholars and provide them appropriate opportunities whenever an 
occasions arises. [498-G, H; 499-A-C] 
CSIR and Ors. v. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain, [2000] 4 SCC 186, relied on. 
Pratibha Mishra and Ors. v. CSIR, distinguished. 
Dr. V.L. Chandra and Ors. v. All India Institute of Medical Scie

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