Holding

The CSIR absorption scheme is a valid one‑time measure; the cut‑off date is rational, no legitimate expectation exists, and the Director General’s discretionary power to relax conditions cannot be judicially compelled.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a scheme framed by CSIR for the absorption/regularisation of researchers who had completed at least 15 years of research work, with a cut‑off date of 2 May 1997. The petitioners (researchers) argued that the cut‑off date and the 15‑year requirement were arbitrary, discriminatory and that they had a legitimate expectation of being regularised. The Court held that the cut‑off date was a rational policy choice linked to the Supreme Court’s earlier direction and that the scheme was a one‑time measure, not ultra vires. It ruled that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply where there is no legal right, and that the Director General’s discretionary power to relax conditions cannot be compelled by the court. Consequently, the High Court’s order fixing a different cut‑off date and directing relaxation was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

The validity and arbitrariness of the cut‑off date (2 May 1997) fixed in the CSIR regularisation scheme.
Whether the researchers have a legal right or legitimate expectation of regularisation under the scheme.
The reasonableness of the 15‑year service requirement for eligibility.
The scope of the Director General’s discretionary power to relax conditions and whether the court can direct its exercise.
Whether the scheme, being a one‑time policy measure, is constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 16.

Legislation cited

Subjects

regularisationabsorptionresearchersCSIRcut‑off datelegitimate expectationdiscretionary poweradministrative lawservice lawjudicial review

Judgment

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1378

A C.S.l.R. & ORS.
v.
RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1716 of 2004)
DECEMBER 19, 2008
B
[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 .,. I
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
/

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. qualified persons were
C available in 1990. When 15 years' period was fixed in 1997, .
it would relate back to 1982 or earlier dates when the
terms and conditions of CSIR research grants were not
applicable. Furthermore, the appellant recognized
fellowship and associateship not only in regard to the
D internally funded scheme but also externally funded
ones. Thus, a person may obtain a grant for research
associateship or research fellowship from other
departments also. [Paras 20 and 21) [1395-A-F] ..
1.2. The definition of 'eligible researcher' is contained
E in paragraph 3(6). Clause (7) of paragraph 3 even
provides for a service under external funded project
scheme. According to the appellants quick hire ser\lice
was a part of it. It may be a separate externally funded
scheme. Quick higher service is also a part of the scheme
•
F in respect of the major projects. [Paras 25 and 27] [1401-
El
1.3. A 'State' is entitled to fix a cut off date. Such a
decision can be struck down only when it is arbitrary. Its
invalidation may also depend upon the q1,Jestion as to
G whether it has a rational nexus with the object sought to
be achieved. 2.5.1997 was the date fixed as the cut off
date in terms of the scheme. The reason assigned
therefor was that this was the date when this Court
directed the appellants to. consider framing of a
regularization scheme. They could have picked up any
H
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1381
ANR.

other date. They could have even picked up the date of· A
the judgment passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal. By choosing 2~5.1997 as the cut off date, no
illegali~y was committed. Ex facie, it cannot be said to be '
arbitrary. However, High Court proceeded on the basis
that the cut off date should have been the date of B
issuance of the notification. The employer in this behalf
has a choice. Its discretion can be held to be arbitrary but .
then the High Court only with a view to show sympathy
to some of the candidates could not have fixed another
date, only because according to it, another date was more
suitable. In law it was not necessary. The court's power C
of judicial review in this behalf although exists but is ·
limited in the sense that the impugned action can be
struck down only when it is found to be arbitrary. It is
p,ossible that by reason of such a cut off date an
employee misses his chance very narrowly. Such D
hazards would be there in all the services. Only because
it causes hardship to a few persons or a section of the
employees may not by itself be a good ground for
directing fixation of another c·ut off date. [Para 29J (1405-
C-G] E
r 1.4. The scheme was- a one-time measure. The '
t
number of posts was not confined to the posts which
have been sanctioned. The validity of the scheme has
been challenged as unrealistic, illusive, arbitrary or
unworkable. Whereas the tribunal directed framing of a F
scheme, this Court directed the appellants to consider
. the same. [Paras 29 and 30] [1405-H; 1406-A-B]
1.5. Cut off date has been fixed for those who are ·
eligible as per the criteria laid down by the scheme. The
service rules were framed in terms of the bye-laws of the
society. Appellant No. 1 is not a statutory authority. It is a G
research oriented Qrganization. It knows its needs. The
research fellows and research associates because of
their involvement in the research work are to get priority
in their appointments. Particular projects whether funded
by the Ministry concerned or others would depend upon H
1382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 17 S.C.R.
~

A the nature thereof. It, by a judicial fiat, could not have been
made a continuous scheme. A policy decision is not
beyond the pale of judicial review. But, the court must
...
invalidate a policy on some legal principles. It can do so,
inter alia, on the premise ~hat it is wholly irrational and not
B
otherwise. The submission of the respondents that only
two chances are granted for consideration of the
candidature of the employees for the purpose of
regularization is misconceived. The scheme being a one-
time measure, even one opportunity could have been
granted. [Para 31] [1406-A-F]
c 1.6. It was with a view to give benefit to the
concerned employees that their services are continued
so that they can avail another opportunity. The quantity/
quality of research work done by a researcher is a very
important considerati~n for assessing the suitability. But,
D that would not mean that any researcher as on 2.5.1997
may not be in a position to complete 15 years of the
service but would do so on 3.7.1998 and, thus, may be _.
deprived of the opportunity of two chances by itself. This
could not have been· a ground to strike down the cut off >-
E date fixed by the appellants. A _person may get having ....
regard to the scheme, one chance or two chances. It is .....
not necessary that irr~spective of the fact that as to
whether they are eligible for consideration in terms of the
scheme or not, must be given two chances. It is not a
F case where the cut off date is given a retrospective effect.
It is also not a case where persons similarly situated are
being treated differently. [Para 32] [1406-F-H; 1407-A-C]
:.· .
D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305,
referred to.
-G 1.7. Researchers are not selected on the basis of the
tenure of research work alone but also on the basis of
their performance in the interview by the selection board.
Submission that cut off date should have been fixed f'

keeping in view the principles of legitimate expectation,
I
is misc-onceived. Legitimate expectation is based on the
H
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v.--RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1383
ANR.

principles of natural justice. There has to be a basis for A
giving effect to the doctrine of legitimate expectation. It
must not be based on mere anticipation. When this Court
directed the appellants to frame a scheme, the same was
required to be framed having regard to the provisions of,
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the facts. B
and circumstances of this case, the doctrine of legitimate
expectation cannot be s.aid to have any application
whatsoever. Submissions had also been made that
failure to take into account or giving due weight to a.
relevant criterion would be contrary to the doctrine of
legitimate expectation. However, respondents singularly. c
failed to demonstrate as to what are the relevant criteria·
which had not been taken into consideration and how
due weight had not been granted to a relevant
consideration. [Paras 33, 34 and 35] [1407-C-E; 1409-B-
C] D
University Grants Commission v. ·Sadhana Chaudhary
and Ors. (1996) 10 SCC 536, Distinguished.
..,. Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1997) 6
SCC 614; Union of India and Ors. v. Lieut (Mrs.) E. lacats
(1997) 7 SCC 334; Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. E
1
t
Ltd. v.. Electricity Inspector and ETIO and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC ,
447; Jitendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.
(2008) 2 SCC 161 and Food Corporation of India v.
Kamdehenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993) 1 SCC 71,
Referred to.

.
F
1.8. Regularization cannot be a mode of recruitment.
' It does not mean permanence. Only an irregularity can be
regularized; an illegality cannot be. The submission that
\
the rules were unworkable is equally meritless apart from
(
the fact that that at least fifty candidates had been found
eligible for consideration, out of whom eight had been
G
selected. Even according to the respondents themselves
)-
they have been working for more than 13 years. Thus, it
is not correct to contend that the period of 15 years
which was fixed, was an unreasonable one. [Para 37]
[1409-E-G] H
,L
1384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. )

A 1.9. The High Court committed a serious error insofar
as it failed to take into consideration that the respondents
did not have any legal right for regularization.
Furthermore, it is one thing to say that a public authority
may· exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant
relaxation in a particular case but it is another thing to say
8
that the superior court shall direct it to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction of relaxation in a particular
manner. Relaxation can be granted only when there exists
a provision therefor. If the provision to grant relaxation
is circumscribed by conditions, those conditions must be
C fulfilled before an order in that regard can be· passed.
However, in the instant case, paragraph 9 of the scheme
although does not contain any limitation in the matter of
exercise of power, it was for the authority concerned to
lay down a principle as to in which case the power of
o relaxation should be exercised and in which case it.
would not be. If .sufficient number of candidates were
available who had worked for more than 15 years, keeping
in view the requirements of the appellant itself the
Director could take a further policy decision that no
E relaxation shall be granted to an applicant who did not
•
.•
'fulfill that criterion. Ordinarily, the court would not
interfere with such discretionary power in exercise of its
jurisdiction of judicial review. [Para 38] [1409-H; 1410-A-
E] .
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3)
F Ors.. (2006) 4 SCC 1, Followed.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Sajal Kumar
j;.
Roy and Ors. (2006) 8 sec· 671; Union of India and. Ors. v.
R.N. Hegde and Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 731 and Director,
Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum and Ors. v. S. Kuttan Pillai
G and Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 736, referred to.
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1975 SC 1329 Referred to. Para 3 1·

(2002) 5 sec' 111 Referred to. Para 3
(1983) 1 SCC 305 Referred to. Para 32
H
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1385
ANR.

(1996) 10 sec 536 Distinguished. Para 33 A
(1997) 6 sec 614 Referred to. Para 33
(1997) 1 sec 334 Referred to. Para 33 ·
(2007) s sec 447 Referred to. Para 34
(2008) 2 sec 161 Referred to. Para 34
(1993) 1 sec 11 Referred to. Para 36 B
(2006) 4 sec 1 Followed. Para 38
(2006) 8 sec 671 Referred to. Para 38
(1998) 8 sec 731 Referred to. Para 38
(1998) 8 sec 736 Referred to. Para 38 c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1716 of 2004
From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.5.2003 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 68 (SB) of 2001. D
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos.1717, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723
and 1724 of 2004.
P.S. Patwalia, R. Venkataramani, Jaideep Gupta, Praveen
Swarup, Devesh Tripathi, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, J.M. E
Sharma, Satya Mitra Garg, Mukesh Verma, Yash Pal Dhingra,
M.P. Shorawala, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj for the appearing
parties and Dr. (Ms.) Kumkum Rani, Caveator-in-person (N.P.).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. These appeals are directed against a
judgment and order dated 7.5.2003 passed by a Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow whereby and whereunder an order dated 22 .. 12.2000
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original G
Application No.151 of 1995 as also the office memorandum
dated 22.12.2000 were set aside and the appellants herein
were directed to consider the case of absorption of the
respondents in terms of the scheme by considering the
question of relaxation with respect to their length of experience
in accordance with the provi~ions of clause 9 thereof. It was H
,1386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A furthermore directed that benefit with respect to breaks shall
also be given to the petitioners as had been done in the case
of other researchers who had been absorbed.
2. The ba~ic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
Appellant is a society registered under the Societies
B Registration Act. It has laboratories situated in different parts
of the country. For carrying out research works, it employs ~- '

qualified persons in the post of Junior Research Fellows,
Senior Research Fellows, Junior Research Associates and
Senior Research Associates. Appointments for carrying out
c researches are also made on the basis of a scheme known
as 'Quick Hire Scheme'. Research works are also carried out
at the instance of the outsiders.
~ 3. Appellant No. 1 was held to be not State by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union
o of India and Others [AIR 1975 SC 1329]. It is only at a much
later date, inter alia, having regard to the fact that the Central
Government is~ued notification in terms of Section 14 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 that the service disputes may
be adjudicated upon by the Central Administrative Tribunal. A
E Seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas
v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others [(2002) 5
SCC 111] overruled Sabhajit Tewary (supra)
4. One Dr. Pratibha Mishra was working with the
appellant. She was not absorbed in the services. She prayed
F for her appointment in the regular cadre of CSIR in the post of
Scientist B. She had also prayed for regularization of her
services. As her prayers in that behalf were rejected, she filed
an original application before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. By reason of a judgment
and order dated 25.9.1996, the Tribunal while lamenting that
G the services of Dr. Mishra had not been regularized despite the
fact that she had worked for 15 years, directed the appellant
to formulate a schef11e for absorption of scientific researchers
at suitable levels, stating :
"Considering ther~fore,
I
the conspectus of the case in the
H
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1387
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

background of the foregoing discussions and also keeping A
in view the principles of equity and justice while we reject
the reliefs prayed for by the applicant, we simultaneously
order as below :
(i) The applicant shall continue to be paid at the
existing rate until she is absorbed in one of the B
Scientific posts under the CSIR and her services
may be utilized by the respondents during this
p_eriod in an appropriate manner.
(ii) The case of the applicant shall be considered for
appointment as Scientist in an existing or future c
vacancy, if necessary by granting age relaxation, as
per CSIR Service Rules.
(iii) The respondents shall formulate a scheme for
absorption of scientifi.c researchers at suitable
levels in respect of those who have put in long o
years of research particularly those with 15 years·
.or more.
Or in the alternative the respondents may suitably
amend CSIR Service Rules, .1994 so as to include a
provision for absorption of Scientific Researchers at E
suitable levels in respect of those who have put in long
years of research work, particularly, 15 years or more.
Modifications to be made in the Service Rules may
provide for grant of weightage as may be considered
appropriate to the period of research work already put in, F
especially for purposes of relaxation in age and
qualifications. Provisions of weightage for purposes of
fixation of seniority and for grant of advance increments
could also be considered."
5. An appeal was preferred thereagainst before this Court. G
By reason of an order dated 2.5.1997, this Court, upon hearing

- )
counsel for both)~e parties, directed as.under:
"We feel that having regard to the facts and circumstances
of this case, the direction of the Tribunal given in respect
of the respondent-Dr. Pratibha Misra, should not be H
1388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A disturbed. However, so far as the formulation of scheme
is concerned, we direct the petitioners to consider the
lo
question of formulating a scheme for people who are
working on contract basis. The Special Leave is disposed
of."
B 6. The order of this Court was implemented. A scheme
was framed in the year 1997 known as 'Scheme for absorption
of researchers working in CSIR Laboratories/Institutes'. It was
with the aforementioned backdrop materials, the scheme was
placed before '.the Governing Body of the appellant for approval
in its 144th meeting which was held on 18.2.1998 and the same
c w~s accepted. The- scheme was circulated by an order dated
3. 7 .1998. It was to come into force from the date of the
issuance of the said circular letter.
The scheme started with the background materials, namely,
as to why the same had to be framed as also the directions of
D
the Central Administrative Tribunal as also this Court. It
considered the current status of the employees. The issue for
consideration was stated to be as under :
"Whether the 'Scheme for Absorption of Researchers in
CSIR Labs./lnstts. 1997' should be implemented for
E
absorption/regularization of Researchers who have put in
15 years or more of research in CSIR Labs/lnstts."
7. We may refer to some of the salient features thereof:
"2. Administration of Scheme
F The Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR),
, hereinafter referred, as Council will administer the scheme. ~

The scheme would be a one-time measure and is for
eligible researchers.
3. Definitions :
G
(i) to (v)
(vi) The eligible Researcher shall mean persons who
has put in 15 years of continuous research as f "
Fellow/Associate/Project Associate on monthly
payment basis on 02.05.1997 and is/was in
H'
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1389
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

position as on that date. A
(vii) The Fellow/Associate means the persons working
in CSIR Laboratories/Institutes who have been
awarded the Fellowship/ Associateship under the
CSIR Research. A Fellowship and Associateship
Schemes and Senior Research Associateship B
(Scientists Pool) Scheme i.e. the scheme operated
through Human Resource Development Group
(HRDG) of the Council. Project Associate means
the person engaged as JRF/ SRF/Associate in
CSIR Laboratories/ Institutes under the externally C
funded projects/schemes.
(viii) For continuous research purpose, a period of two
months shall be condoned for counting the period
of 15 years and this will not be treated as break for
this purpose. The period of two months may be in
0
different spells but the total period shall not be more
than two months." /
8. The scheme was framed as a one-time measure. It was
..,.
applicable to the eligible researchers engaged on full time basis
in CSIR Laboratories/ Institutes under the Scheme operated
E
through HRDG of the Council or under externally funded
projects/schemes of the Council in its Laboratories Institutes.
· 9. Some of the terms and conditions for absorption are :
"(a) As per 'Rules', the maximum age limit for
recruitment to Group IV(1) and Group IV(2) is 35 F
years. However, in the case of Researchers
• covered by this Scheme, relaxation upto 10 years
would be considered in the upper age limit as on
t 02.05.1997, over and above the maximum age limit
--.• prescribed under the rules for recruitment to Group
IV(1) and IV(2). G

(b) The eligible researchers concerned should possess
... the educational qualifications prescribed .for the
Group IV(1) and Group IV(2). No relaxation in
educational qualification shall be permissible.
H
1390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A (c) Orders on reservation for SC/ST/OBC, etc. issued
by Government of India from time to time shall
apply in operation of this Scheme.
(d) The selection of the concerned researchers for their
absorption shall be determined. by a Central
B Selection Committee constituted by DG, CSIR on
the lines of the constitution of the Selection
Committee prescribed in the 'Rules'. The Central
Selection Committee shall determine their suitability
for absorption after interviewing the candidates.
Non-availability of posts shall not be a constraint for
c implementation of this Scheme."
10. The scheme provided for a power of relaxation in the
Director, stating:
"9. DG, CSIR shall have the power to relax/ modify/amend
o any of the conditions/provisions of the Scheme except
relating to educational qualification mentioned in para
6(b)."
The cut off date fixed therein was 2.5.2007.
11. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said scheme, 51
·E persons applied therefor. Eight of -them were selected.
Respondents allegedly were denied even an application form.
They filed an Original Application before the Tribunal. The said
application was dismissed by the Tribunal stating :
" ... we are of the view that the decision for grant of
F fellowship and associateship and conditions laid down
thereof, is a policy matter and the Tribunal cannot interfere
with the same."
12. As indicated hereinbefore, the said order of the
Tribunal was subject matter of the writ petitions filed before the '"'
G High Court. Before the High Court principally two contentions
were raised :
(a). Ordinary tenure of researchers in the posts JRF/
SRF/RA/SRA being 5+5+3 = 13 years, the
condition of 15 years of ~ervice is arbitrary.
H
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1391
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

(b) Quick Hire Service which is a stopgap arrangement A
against a post/ vacancy of the scientist to make
regular appointment having been taken into
consideration in the case of some of the applicants,
the same was discriminatory in nature.
13. The High Court answered both the question in favour B
of the respondent holding that the cut off date being 2.5.1997
is unreasonable and the same should have been fixed as on
the date of issuance of the notification. It was furthermore opined
that the Director General of the appellant having been conferred
with the general power of relaxation, his decision not to C
consider the case of any candidate whatsoever who had not
worked for a period of 15 years of continuous research was
arbitrary, stating:
"The scope and import of clause 9 had to be considered
by the Tribunal in its correct perspective for the simple
0
reason that the scheme was framed as per directions
issued by the Tribunal itself and when non-absorption of
the petitioners was in question before the Tribunal, the
Tribunal ought to have considered the provisions of the
Scheme and its implementation in a manner which was in
consonance with the provisions of the scheme and also E
ought to have scrutinized the reasons for which the
petitioners wefe excluded from being considered for
absorption."
14. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel, in support
of this appeal, would submit : F
(i) Appellant had an unfettered right to lay down the
criteria for absorption.
(ii) 15 years' service must be held to be a reasonable
period, as a large number of persons were found G
eligible therefor. Furthermore even the Tribunal in
its judgment dated 25.9.1996 issued such a
direction.
(iii) Cut off date fixed at 2:5.1997 is rational and has a
nexus with the date of dismissal of the special H
1392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A leave petition. By reason thereof larger scope for
regularization had been created.
(iv) The High Court committed a serious error of law in f.
directing application of the exemption clause 1to all
the candidates as no mandamus for relaxation can
B be issued.
(v) Respondents had no legal right to be appointed in
view of this Court's decision in Secretary, State of
Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. [(2006) 4
sec 11.
c 15. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, on the other hand,
would urge:
(a) By including unreasonable condition(s), the
purpose of the directions of the Tribunal and this
D Court as regards framing of a scheme for
absorption was frustrated.
(b) Fixing of 15 years of scientific research work as the
eligibility criteria was without any basis and is in
total disregard of the history of engagement of
E scientific research personnel and the rules in vogue
in this regard which permit only a maximum of 13
years Of engagement.
(c) Inclusion of services rendered in certain schemes,
such as the Quick Hire Scheme, in the permissible
F or available category of engagement was an
afterth.ought and in effect and substance contrary to
and inconsistent with the spirit of the scheme. But
if the benefit of services of Quick Hire Schemes
and certain other engagements are taken out of
G reckoning, even the cases of eight persons
absorbed will also go out of the scheme as they
would have only less than 15 years to their credit.
(d) The High Court b.y reason of its impugned judgment (
has merely read down the scope of the scheme
H instead of declaring it ultra·vires by taking recourse
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1393
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

to paragraph 9 thereof providing for relaxation A
giving it a meaningful intent and scope.
(e) The Director General, CSIR acted arbitrarily in
refusing to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction
conferred on him under paragraph 9~
(f) Issuance of a direction to exercise discretionary 'B
jurisdiction by the High Court must be held to be an
integral part of the scheme of absorption.
16. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondent in CA No.2041 of 2004, supplementing Mr.
Venkataramani, would contend : C
(i) Prescribing of 15 years' service was unworkable
as Quick Hire Scheme was not a part thereof having
regard to the definition contained in clause 3(vi) and
3(7). Any appointment made in violation of the
scheme must be held to be unreasonable. D
(ii) Fixation of a cut off date being subject to judicial
review, it was permissible for the court to direct that
the,eut off date should be considered as 3. 7 .1998
on which the scheme came into force.
(iii) The scheme, as originally framed, was . E
unreasonable as only two chances were given for
filing an application.
(iv) Having regard to the scheme that nobody had a
right to be absorbed and as it was found that out
of 51 candidates, only eight had been found to be F
eligible therefor, the power of relaxation could be
directed to be exercised by the Director. One of the
applicants had completed 14 years and 9 months
as on 2.5.1997 and if 3.7.1998 is considered to be
the cut off date, the applicants could have been G
,' found to be eligible.
(v) In view of the decision of the Tribunal as also the
High Court, the applicants had a legitimate
expectation of absorption and, thus, the cut off date
should have been fixed having regard to the H
1394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R.

A principles attached thereto and particularly when the
scope of the said doctrine had recently been
expanded by this Court.
(vi) The Court can read down a statute and necessary
direction if the rule is found to be unworkable. No
B mandamus has been issued to regularize the
services of the respondents and having regard to
the fact that the scheme was postulated as a one-
time measure and all applicants were not to be
absorbed, the High Court could issue the requisite
C guidelines.
17. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents in CA No.1716 of 2004, submitted that the
concerned respondents had put in more than 13 years of
service as on 2.7.1997.
D 18. The principal question which, thus, arises for
consideration was as to whether those appointed for a fixed
period as JRF, SRF, RA and SRA would have not.more than
13 years' service even if they are appointed on a regular basis.
19. Appellant is a society registered under the Societies
E Registration Act. It was not enacted under the Parliamentary
Act. It has its own bye-laws. The terms and conditions of its
employees are not governed by any statute. Fellowships
provide opportunities to bright young men and women for
training in methods of the research under the expert guidance
F of faculty members/scientists working in University
departments/National Laboratory and Institutes in various fields
of science and technology including medical sciences.
Preference is given to subject/topic of research relevant to the
research programmes of CSIR laboratories and nationally
important S&T areas.
G
Junior Research Fellows are granted stipend for a period
of two years. On completion thereof, the stipend is increased
for the third year on the basis of assessmeF;lt of his/her research
progress achievements. The total tenure of Junior Research
Fellowship and Senior Research Fellowship is not to exceed
H
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1395
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

five years. Senior Research Fellowship is also granted in A
almost similar terms although the stipend and tenure may be
) different. Although the total tenure of JRF and SRF could not
exceed five years but extension orders for 4 to 5 years are to.
be issued according to the procedure outlined therein.
Associateships are awarded by various authorities . B
including UGC/ DST/ICMR/ICAR. The total tenure of Research
Associate ordinarily would not exceed five years.
20. We may, however, notice that aforementioned terms
and conditions fixing the tenure for Junior· and Senior Research
Fellowships and research associates limiting the period of ' c
tenure had been brought into force only w.e.f. 1.1.1990. Prior
thereto, the period was five years in each post which would
mean that one could work for 20 years. Apart from CSIR,
research work done in other institutions is also taken into
consideration. As noticed hereinbefore, it would include the
D
period of fellowship by UGC/DST/ICMR/ICAR etc. If decision
as regards tenure was taken as in its affidavit before the High
Court, the appellant contended that more qualified persons
were available in 1990. When 15 years' period was fixed in
1997, it would relate back to 1982 or earlier dates when, as
indicated hereinbefore, the terms and conditions of CSIR E
research grants were not applicable. Furthermore, the appellant
recognized fellowship and associateship not only in regard to
the internally funded scheme but also externally funded ones.
21. Thus, a person may obtain a grant for research

-- ,, associateship or research fellowship from other departments
also.
F

We may notice that in the supplementary counter affidavit
affirmed by one Anil Kumar before the High Court, it was stated

.. "That as on 02.05.1997 and 03.07 .1998, total number of
researchers of the Human Resources Development Group,
CSIR, earlier named as Extra Mural Research Division,
G

';

CSIR, New Delhi are as follows :

H
•
1396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A S.No. Name of Fellowship As on As on
02.05.1997 03.07.1998
01 Sr. Research 361* 346**
Associate
(Pool Officer)
B 02. Research Associate 1,547 1,018
03. Sr. Research Fellow 3,152 2,082
04. Jr. Research Fellow 1,278 969
TOTAL 6,238 4,415
c * Position as on 30.06.1997
** Position as on 30.09.1998

The aforesaid figure does not include the researchers of
the Externally Func;led Project/Scheme and also those
D researchers who were working as researcher in major projects
under Quick Hire Scheme. However, the aforesaid information
is being sought from individual 39 laboratories/institutes of
CSIR all over India."
22. Details of research experience of those absorbed
E under 1997 scheme were also annexed which are as under :
as on page ......
23. We will advert to the said chart a little later but we may
hereto notice the explanatory note appended thereto, which
reads as under :
F "CSIR was awarding various research fellowships and
associateships like Jr. Research Fellowship (JRF), Sr. -.
'I(
Research Fellowship (SRF), Research Associateship (RA)
and Sr. Research Associateship (SRA). SRA was earlier
known as Pool Officer.
G Similarly, many other organizations like UGC, ICMR,
ICAR, DBT and DST etc. had also been awarding similar
research fellowships and associateships. SRA/Pool
...
Officer is awarded only by CSIR. '(

Tenure:
H
• '\

Details of research experience of those absorbed under 1997 Scheme
As on
2.5.97.
SI Name of Applicant Award by Fellowship Duration At Duration Total
y/m/d y-m-d
1. Dr. Pratibha Mishra INSA JRF 12.06.81-30.06.84 NBRI 03-00-00 15-04-15
RAN BAXY JRF 1.7.84 - 31.12.84 NBRI 00-06-00
CSIR SRF 1.1.85 - 31.12.87 NBRI 03-00-00
RA 17.05.88-31.05.93 NBRI 05-00-14
SRA 29.6.93-02.05.97 NBRI 03-10-03

2. Dr. Tripti De DST JRF 6177-11177 llCB 00-05-00 15-05-00
CSIR JRF 12/77-11/79 llCB 02-00-00
SRF 12179-11/80 llCB 01-00-00
Pre PD 12/80-2/82 llCB
Post Doct 5/82-4/83 llCB 01-00-00
ND Univ PDF 4/83-12/85 USA
CSIR SRA 1986-1989 llCB 03-00-00
RF-UN DP 1989-1995 llCB 06-00-00
~
Quick Hire 1995-1997 llCB 02-00-00 (,,)
(()
00

3. Dr. GK Padam NPL GW 21.7.74-10n6 NPL 19-07-16.
DAE JRF 28.10.76-29.2.82 NPL 05-04-01
en
NPL PDF 1.3.82-29.2.83 NPL 01-00-00 c
"'O
NPL RA 1.3.83-29.2.88 NPL 05-00-00 :::0
m
CSIR SRA 14.4.88-15.4.91 NPL 03-00-00 s:
m
CSIR RA 16.4.91-31.7.96 NPL 05-03-15 ()
0
NPL RW 1.8.96-31.10.96 NPL c
NPL RW 21.8.96-27.2.97 NPL ~
:::0
NPL RW 2.4.97-5.6,97 NPL m
"'O
DAE RA 6.6.97-1999 NPL 0

~
4. Dr. Farhat Nigar Jaffrey ICMR JRF 1.4. 79-30.4.81 ITRC 02-00-29 17.10.11
DST SRF 1.5.81-31.3.87 ITRC 05-10-03
ITRC TO 1.4.87-21.6.88 ITRC 1.2.21
ITRC Quick Hire 21.6.88-20.6.91 ITRC 3.0.20
ITRC PO 21.6.91-5/97 ITRC 6.0.21

• J
5. Dr. PKS Visen ICMR JRF 23. 6. 80-22. 6. 83 CORI 03-00-00 17-05-05
SRF 1.12.83-31.12.85 CORI 02-01-00
RA 1.1.86-22.8.88 CORI 02-07-27
RO 23.8.88-20.10.91 CORI 03-01-27
SRO 21.10.91-02.05.97 CORI 06-06-11
>

6. Dr. Kumkum. Srivastava CSIR JRF 31.5.79-31.8.79 CORI 00-03-00 17-08-24
ICMR JRF 1.9.79-31.8.82 CORI 03-00-00
SRF 1.9.82-4.8.86 CORI 03-11-03
RA 5.8.86-31.12.86 CORI 00-04-26
CORI Quick Hire 1. 1. 87-31. 12. 89 CORI 03-00-00
CSIR RA 9.1.90-31.1.95 CORI 05-00-00
CSIR SRA Y,3.95-2.5.97 CORI 02-01-25

7. Dr. Anju Puri ICMR JRF 1.9.79-31.8.82 .CORI 03-00-00 16-04-26 .
SRF 1.9.82-30.8.83 CORI 01-00-00
DBT RA 1.7.84-30.6.89 CORI 05-00-00
CSIR RA 1.7.89-30.6.94 CORI 05-00-00
/ CSIR SRA 6.12.94-2.5.97 CORI 02-04-26'
1400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A JRF plus SRF - 5 years
RA- 5 years
SRA..,. Not specifically prescribed, dependent on case to
case.
PDF - Post Doctoral Fellowship scheme was operated
B
by HRDG during 1980 and was later discontinued.
Therefore, this tenure also counts.
Prior to 01.01.1990 these Fellowships/
Associateships could be availed by the sart)e individual
· from more than one organization. In other words the same
c individual could have availed JRF + SRF of 5 years from
UGC and again JRF + SRF of 5 years from CSIR. Similarly
RA could have been availed from two organizations.
· Ceiling of tenure: JRF+SRF - 5 years;
b RA - 5 years; and SRA - 3 years ·
Effective from 01.01.1990 CSIR incorporated a
regulation that ~RF plus SRF put together cannot exceed
5 years including the awards from UGC, ICMR, ICAR, DST,
and DST etc.
E ·Effective from 01.01.1990 CSIR incorporated a
regulation that RA cannot exceed 5 years including the
awards from UG,C, ICMR, ICAR, DST, and DST etc.
\ '·
Effective from 1990 CSIR incorporated a regulation
that SRA cannot exceed 3 years. As of now SRA is
F awarded only by CSIR.
Quick Hire Scheme: This is a Scheme of CSIR for •
appointment of scientists for major projects. The scientists
are to do R&D work in projects.
Meaning of the term Project Associate:
G
Para 3(vii) of the Scheme defines as "Project
Associate means the person engaged as JRFISRFI
Associate in CSIR Laboratories/ Institutes under the
externally funded projects! schemes."
CSIR has not prescribed any standard designations
H
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1401
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.)

for staff appointed under the' externally funded projects/ A
schemes. Various names/designations have been used in
Labs and keeping in view the spirit of the Scheme, the
word Associate shall mean to include all those associated
with the research work in such projects including major
projects for which scientists are appointed under Quick
B
Hire Scheme."
24. It has been pointed out before us that Dr. Pratibha
Mishra did not render any service under the Quick Hire Scheme.
Dr. Tripti De rendered Quick Hire Service only for a period of
two years. Dr. G.K. Padam did not render any service under
the Quick Hire Scheme and he was in service for a period of
c
about 19 years. Dr. Farhat Nigar Jaffrey had rendered only three
years in the quick hire scheme service whereas Dr. P.K.S. Visen
did not render any such service. It is, however accepted that
Dr. Kumkum Srivastava has rendered three years Quick Hire
Service while Dr. Anju Puri did not render any quick hire D
service.
25. It is with the aforementioned backround, we may notice
the definition of 'eligible researcher' as contained in paragraph
3(6). Clause (7) of paragraph 3 even provides for a service
under external funded project scheme. According to the E
appellants quick hire service was a part of it. It may be a
separate externally funded scheme.
26. Yet, there is another aspect of the matter which cannot
be lost sight of. Respondents and/or some of them have
contended that as on the cut off date fixed, they had completed F
about 14 years' service and still they had been continuing in
service.
We have noticed hereinbefore the specific contention
raised by the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect I

that had the cut off date been fixed as 3.5.1998, they would G
have completed more than 15 years. There is, thus, an inherent
contradiction in the said submission. The High Court, as noticed
1 hereinbefore proceeded on the premise that the 13 years'
service is the maximum. The Tribunal in Dr. Pratibha's case
H
1402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A noticed that she had been serving the appellant for more than t=
fifteen years. In its judgment, it recommended framing of a
scheme for regularization in respect of these employ~es who .....

had put in more than fifteen years of service. We may also take
a look at the scheme for quick recruitment of scientist for major
projects which are as under :
B
"(11.4.2) Scheme for Quick Recruitment of Scientist for
Major Projects
(1) Appointments of Fellows
r-
(a) Selection Procedure:
c When a Scientist of talent is identified in India or abroad,
·'
~
and is known to be available immediately or in the near
future, the Director of the Laboratories may proceed as ,
j
follows:
If the Scientists in India:
D
The Director may constitute a Committee with himself as
Chairman, and the following as Members:
- Two outside expert members of RAC ,..
- Area Coordinator/Group ·Leader of the concerned area
:~ E in the laboratory.
- Another senior scientist of the Laboratory in the
concerned or related areas. j,
~
: The Committee may interview the Scientist, who may, if '
considered necessary, be required to give a talk be~ore
F the Committee and other Scientist. of the Laboratory.
If the Committee finds the Scientist to be outstanding and •
highly suitable for the required work, they may recommend ,,
the induction of the scientist as fellow and also suggest the
emoluments and the range within which the appointment
G is to be made:
The Director may make the appointment accordingly, and
report it to the Executive Committee in its next meeting. 'r

-
If, however, the prescdbed length of experience vide (f)
below is to be relaxed in any case, the pfior concurrenGe
H
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1403
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

of DG, CSIR must be taken before the appointment is A
made.
(b) Appointing Authority:
The Director of the Laboratory/Institutes will be the
Appointing Authority.
B
(c) Designation of the Scientists:
The Scientists concerned will be designated as a "Fellow"
of the Laboratory.
(d) Levels of Emoluments:
The levels of pay in which the Scientists can be appointed C
under the New Scheme will be as follows Range (1) Rs.
2400/2500/2600/2800/2900/3000
Range (2): Rs. 3000/3100/3200/3400/3500/3600/3800/
.4000
• Range (3): Rs. 3600/3800/4000/4300/4600/5000 D
The above scales do not envisage grant of annual
increments of Rs. 100/- per month. The object of indicating
the scales in the above manner is that the scientists can
be appointed at any stage in the above three different E
ranges of pay;
The above ranges may be reviewed in the event of any
revision in the present pay structures in respect of regular
scientific cadres
Review of emoluments will be undertaken at the end of two F
years. At this time all cases can be reviewed by the above
Committee as to whether a scientist deserves higher
emoluments within the same range. On the
recommendations of the Committee, the Director may
grant higher rate of emoluments.
G
(e) Duration of Tenure:
The appointment of such Fellows will be on contract for a
.., period not exceeding three years, and it may be
terminated by a notice of three months from either side (or
three month's emoluments in lieu thereof). The contract H
1404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R

A cannot be extended beyond the above maximum period.
(f) Qualifications:
Qualifications for scientists recruited under the New
Scheme will be as follows:
(i) Range No. 1.
B
M.Tech. or equivalent degree/MBBS with one year
internship/Ph.D(Sc.), with uniformly outstanding academic
record; and clear potential for high quality R&D work.
(ii) Range No. 2.
c M.Tech. or equivalent degree with three years experience,/
MD/Ph.D.(Se.)/ Ph.D(Engg.). with outstanding academic
record, and proven ability for high quality R&D work.
(iii)
M.Tech./MD/Ph.D. or equivalent degree in respective
D discipline, with original work as evidence by highly-
innovative patents or outstanding publications - evidence
of leadership, with minimum of 5 year R&D experience.
(g) Police Verification of Scientists on ir,iitial appointments
.
+-

E Police verification prior to actual appointments need
not be insisted upon in rion-serisitive jobs. If, however a ~~

particular scientist is being appointed in a project or
projects which is/are of sensitive or strategic nature from
the view point of security, prior police verification may be
done.
F ,,.
(h) Applicability of conduct and other rules :
~'
The Scientists recruited under the new scheme will be
subject to the operation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964
and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as made applicable to other .\
employee of the CSIR and subject to other Rules and
G
Regulations of the CSIR in force.
(i) Strength of Fellows in a Laboratories/Institutes:
The number of positions of Fellows in each Laboratory will
'r -·
be fixed by the DGSIR, normally between 5 and 10 having
H regard to the needs of the Lab. and the number and
..
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1405
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

expertise of the Scientific Personnel already available." A
Thus, quick higher service is also a part of the scheme in
respect of the major projects.
28. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion committed a ,
factual error in opining that 13 years' period is the maximum
period for which the respondents could work as fellows and B
associates, both as junior and senior.
29. A 'State' is entitled to fix a cut off date. Such a decision
can be struck down only when it is arbitrary. Its invalidation may '
also depend upon the question as to whether it has a rational
nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 2.5.1997 was the C
date fixed as the cut off date in terms of the scheme. The reason
assigned therefor was that this was the date when this Court
directed the appellants to consider framing of a regularization ,
scheme. They could have picked up any other date. They could
have even picked up the date of the judgment passed by the o
Central Administrative Tribunal. As rightly contended by Mr.
Patwalia, by choosing 2.5.1997 as the cut off date, no illegality
was committed. Ex facie, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. The ,
High Court, however, proceeded on the basis that the cut off
date should have been the date of issuance of the notification. · E
The employer in this behalf has a choice. Its discretion can be
held to be arbitrary but then the High Court only with a view to
show sympathy to some of the candidates could not have fixed
another date, only because according to it, another date was
more suitable. In law it was not necessary. The court's power
of judicial review in this behalf although exists but is limited in F
the sense that the impugned action can be struck down only '
when it is found to be arbitrary. It is possible that by reason of ,
such a cut off date an employee misses his chance very
narrowly. Such hazards would be there in all the services. Only
because it causes hardship to a few persons or a section of G
the employees may not by itself be a.good ground for directing
fixation of another cut off date.
, The scheme was a one-time measure. The number of
posts was not confined to the posts which have been
H
1406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A sanctioned.
30. The validity of the scheme has been challenged as
unrealistic, illusive, arbitrary or unworkable. •
We may at this juncture notice that whereas the Tribunal
directed framing of a scheme, this Court directed the appellants .
B to consider the same.
31. Cut off date has been fixed for those who are eligible
as per the criteria laid down by the scheme. The service rules
were framed iri terms of the bye-laws of the soeiety. It would
bear repetition to state that the appellant No. 1 is not a statutory
C authority. It is a research oriented organization. It knows its
· needs. The research fellows and research associates because
of their involvement in the research work are to get priority in
their appointments. Particular projects whether funded by the
Ministry concerned or others would depend upon the nature
o thereof. It, by a judicial fiat, could not have been made a
continuous scheme.
Indisputably, a policy decision is not beyond the pale of
judicial review. But, the court must invalidate a policy on some
legal principles. It can do so, inter alia, on the premise that it is
E wholly irrational and not otherwise. The contention of the
respondents that only two chances are granted for
consideration of the candidature of the employees for the
purpose of regularization is, in our opinion, misconceived. The
scheme being a one-time measure, even one opportunity could
F have been granted.
32. It was with a view to give benefit to the concerned
employees that their services are continued so that they can ).
avail another opportunitf. Indisputably, the quantity/ quality of
research work done by a researcher is a very important
G consideration for assessing the suitability. But, that would not
mean that any researcher as on 2.5.1997 may not be in a
position to complete 15 years of the service but would do so
on 3.7.1998 and, thus, may be deprived of the opportunity of
two chances by itself. This could not have been a ground to
strike down the cut off date fixed by the appellants. It is
H
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1407
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

reiterated that a person may get, having regard to the scheme, A
one chance or two chances. ·
, It is not necessary that irrespective of the fact that as to
whether they are eligible for consideration in terms of the
scheme or not, must be given two chances. It is not a case,
where the cut off date is given a retrospective effect. We fail to B
understand how that would be inconsistent with the spirit of two
chances or otherwise discriminatory unlike D.S. Nakara and
Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) ((1983) 1 SCC 305]. It is also not
· a case where persons similarly situated are being treated
differently. c
33. Another aspect of the matter cannot also be lost sight
of. Researchers are not selected on the basis of the tenure of
research work alone but also on the basis of their performance
in the interview by the selection board.
Submission to the effect that cut off date should have been ,o
fixed keeping in view the principles of legitimate expectation,
to say the least, is misconceived. Legitimate expectation is
based on the principles of natural justice. There has to be a
basis for giving effect to the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
It must not be based on mere anticipation. When this Court E
. directed the appellants to frame a scherhe, the same was
required to be framed having regard to the provisions of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Reliance has been placed on University Grants
Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary and Others [(1996) 10 F
sec 536] (which in our opinion otherwise has no application •
to the facts of the present case), wherein this Court held:
"Prior to the making of the 1991 Regulations there was no
statutory requirement regarding clearing the eligibility test
for the purpose of appointment on the post of Lecturer. ' G
Such a requirement was introduced for the first time by the
1991 Regulations. At the time when the 1991 Regulations
were made the provisions contained in the 1982
Regulations had given rise to a legitimate expectation that
a person having a Ph.Dor M.Phil degree and having good
H
1408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A academic record as prescribed under the 1982
Regulations would be eligible for appointment on the post
of Lecturer without anything more. While introducing the
requirement of clearing the eligibility test in the 1991
Regulation's, the UGC did not intend to deprive the
persons who had obtained M.Phil degree or Ph.D degree
B
prior ·to the making of the 1991 Regulations of their
legitimate expectation in the matter of appointment on the
post of Lecturer in universities or colleges."
The ratio of the said decision does not support the
C contention of the respondents.
Strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent on Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(1997) 6 SCC 614), wherein it has
been opined :
D "In the first place the fixing of a cut-off date for determining
the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a·post is not,
per se, arbitrary. Basically, the fixing of a cut-off date for
determining the maximum or minimum age required for a
post, is in the discretion of the rule-making authority or the
employer ~s the case may be. One must accept that such
E
a cut-off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical
precision and in such a manner as would avoid hardship
in all conceivable cases. As soon as a cut-off date cannot
be fixed with any mathematical precision and in such a
manner as would avoid hardship in all conceivable cases.
F As soon as a cut-off date is fixed there will be some
persons who fall on the right side of the cut-off date and
some persons who will fall on the wrong side of the cut off
date. That cannot make the cut-off date, per se, arbitrary
unless the cut-off date is so wide off the mark as to make
G it wholly unreasonable."
{See also Union of India & Ors. v. Lieut (Mrs.) E. lacats
[(1997) 7 sec 334 - para 4]}.
34. We may, however, notice that recently the doctrine of
legitimate expectation has been applied by this Court in
H
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1409
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity A
Inspector & ETIO and Others (2007) 5 SCC 447 and Jitendra
Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Another [(2008) 2 ·
sec 161] wherein a clear distinction has been made between
legitimate expectation and an anticipation.
We, therefore, are of the opinion that in the facts and B
circumstances of this case, the doctrine of legitimate
expectation cannot be said to have any application whatsoever.
35. Submissions had also been made that failure to take
into account or giving due weight to a relevant criterion would
be contrary to the doctrine of legitimate expectation.. c
Respondents, however, singularly failed to demonstrate as to
what are the relevant criteria which had not been taken into
consideration and how due weight had not been granted to a
relevant consideration.
36. It is not a case unlike Food Corporation of India v. Ml o
s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries [(1993) 1 SCC 71} where
a contract was to be awarded. Different considerations would
arise for framing a scheme for regularization and not for the
purpose of grant of a contract. Ordinarily, recruitment must be
made in consonance with the equality clause contained in
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ·E
37. Regularization, as is well-known, cannot be a mode of
recruitment. It does not mean permanence. Only an irregularity
can be regularized; an illegality cannot be. Contention raised
by the learned counsel for the parties that the rules were
unworkable is equally meritless apart from the fact that that at F
least fifty candidates had been found eligible for consideration,
out of whom eight had been selected. Even according to the
respondents themselves they have been working for more than
13 years.
G
Thus, it is not correct to contend that the period of 15 years
which was fixed, was an unreasonable one.
38. The High Court, in our opinion, furthermore committed
a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that
the respondents did not have any legal right for regularization H
1410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A having regard to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this
Court in Umadevi (3) (supra). Furthermore, it is one thing to say
that a public authority may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction
to grant relaxation in a particular case but it is an9ther thing to
say that the superior court shall direct it to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction of relaxation in a particular manner.
8
Relax;ation can be granted only when trere exists a provision
therefor. If the provision to grant relaxation is circumscribed by
conditions, those conditions must be fulfilled before an order
in that regard can be passed.
C However, in this case, paragraph 9 of the scheme although
does not contain any limitation in the matter of exercise of
power, it was for the authority concerned to lay down a principle
as to in which case the power of relaxation should be exercised
and in which case it would not be. If sufficient number of
candidates were available who had worked for more than 15
D years, keeping in view the requirements of the appellant itself
the Director could take a further policy decision that no
relaxation shall be granted to an applicant who did not fulfill that
criterion. Ordinarily, the court, it is trite, would not interfere with .,,
such ~iscretionary power in exercise of its jurisdiction of judicial
E review.
In Kendriya Vidya/aya Sangathan and Others v. Sajal
Kumar Roy and Others [(2006) 8 SCC 671], this Court held:
"11 ... The appointing authorities are required to apply their
mind while exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to
F relax the age limits. Discretion of the authorities .is required
to be exercised only for deserving candidates and upon
recommendations of the Appointing Committee/ Selection
Committee. The requirements to comply with the rules, it
is trite, were required to be complied with fairly and
G reasonably. They were bound by the rules. The
discretionary jurisdiction could be exercised for relaxation
of age provided for in the rules and within the four corners
thereof. As Respondents do not come within the purview
of the exception contained in Article 45 of the Education
Code, in our opinion, the Tribunal and consequently, the
H
C.S.l.R. & ORS. v. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1411
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

High Court committed a manifest error in issuing the A
aforementioned directions."
In Union of India and Others v. R.N. Hegde and Others
[(1998) 8 SCC 731], this Court held:
"6. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has given
direction for regularisation of the respondents by giving tlile B
relaxation in the upper age limit by treating the minimum
period of 40 days for the calendar year 1989. and no
period for the calendar year 1990 for such of the Casual
Staff Artistes who were recruited prior to 1988 and were
not assigned work ih the calendar years 1988 and 1989 c
in pursuance of the note dated 26-5-1989 (sic). The said
direction of the Tribunal is not in consonance with the
scheme as notified vide OM dated 9-6-1992 and it cannot
be upheld. The matter of regularisation of the respondents,
including the question whether they should be give!n
0
relaxation in the matter of age, has to be considered only
in accordance with the provisions contained in the scheme
as notified vide OM dated 9-6-1992."
Similar view has been taken by this Court in Director,
Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum and Others v. S. Kuttan E
Pillai and Others [(1998) 8 SCC 736].
39. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned
judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly.·
The appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and

- circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
N.J. Appeals allowed.
F