Holding

The research associateship schemes are temporary, social‑welfare programmes that do not create any right to permanent employment, and the petitioners are not entitled to continuation or regularisation.

Summary

The petitioners, post‑doctoral research associates appointed under UGC or CSIR schemes, sought continuation of their appointments beyond the fixed tenure, arguing that the schemes implied permanency and that their termination violated their rights. The respondents contended that the schemes were merely temporary, social‑welfare measures designed to support unemployed Ph.D. holders for up to five years and did not create any substantive post or entitlement to regularisation. The Court examined the nature of the schemes, noting that they were contractual, non‑renewable, and expressly excluded any creation of permanent posts or equivalence with university teaching positions. Relying on earlier judgments, the Court held that the schemes are intended as interim support and not as employment, and therefore the petitioners have no right to continuation or regularisation. Consequently, the Court declined to direct the framing of any new scheme and dismissed the writ petitions.

Issues considered

Whether the UGC/CSIR research associateship schemes confer a right to continued employment or permanency for post‑doctoral research associates.
Whether the schemes are constitutionally defective and require judicial direction to be re‑framed.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularisation or absorption after the expiry of their contractual tenure.

Subjects

research associateshipUGC schemeCSIR schemecontract tenureregularisationpost‑doctoralsocial welfarejudicial review

Judgment

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

APRIL 26, 2002
B
[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.

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
H 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]
G
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 ofMedical Sciences, [1990)
3 SCC 39 and Dr. V.P. Chatu,,,edi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1991) H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R.

A 4 sec 171, referred to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 67 of
1998. .

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
B·
WITH
\.-

W.P. (C) Nos. IOI, I02, I03, 444, 62, II7, 118 and I94/1998

Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor General, L. Nageshwara Rao, P.S.
C Narasimha, V.G. _Pragasam, Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, G. Ramakrishna
Prssad, Mohd. Wasay Khan, K.C. Sudarshan, Jayanth Muthraj, U. Udaya
Kumar Sagar Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. S. Trehan, Gaurab Banerjee, Navin
Prakash, Ms. Setia Vaidya-lingam, L.R. Singh, Bijan Kr. Ghosh, M.K.D.
Namboodiri, Rajiv Mehta, H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee, Ms. Anindita
Gupta, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Arona Mathur, for the appearing parties.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. This batch of writ petitions have been filed
by Post-Doctoral Research Associates having Research Associateship under
a scheme framed either by the University Grants Commission [for short
E 'UGC'] or by the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research [for short
'CSIR']. Some of the petitioners had filed writ petitions before the High
Court of Delhi in C.W.P. Nos. 4088/98 and these petitions were dismissed by
stating that the petitioners cannot claim any right to continue to remain as
Research Associates beyond the contract period and their right to remain in
F the said capacity come to an end on expiry of the contract period. Those
petitioners are before this Court. the UGC has given a list of Research
Associate and in practically all the cases the research work has not exceeded
five years and on completion of the tenure their fellowship has been
discontinued. Further it has been stated before us that earlier the UGC has
discontinued the scheme for the year I 998 except in relation to those who are
G continued under the existing scheme.

Under the scheme, duration of the Research Associateship is for an
initial period of three years and a further extension of one or two years would
be given after evaluation by an expert committee. Such Research Associateship
is not intended to be an employment but an interim arrangement made for
H getting a job in any University or College during which the Research Associate
j
POST-DOCTORAL RES. ASSO. OF S.V. UNIVERSITYv.U.0.1. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 495

was given an opportunity to pursue research. If a Research Associate obtained A
employment during the currency of the Research Associateship, he was at
liberty to resign from the Research Associateship and join a new post. They
were not designated as Lecturers and the emoluments paid to them bear no
relationship to the existing schemes in Universities.

Considering the tentative nature of this Associateship, on behalf of the B
writ petitioners it is urged before us in these writ petitions that the scheme
of Research Associateship is counter productive causing great harm not only
to the research scholars but also to the entire nation as once the tenure of
Research Associateship expires there is no way to evaluate the validity or
soundness cf the research undertaken by them during the last a few years of C
such associateship; the UGC or CSIR cannot assess whether the expenditure
incurred year after year in this regard is properly utilised or not; that the
scheme contemplated by the UGC as well as CSIR clearly indicates that
Research Associateship is treated as permanent except that the researchers
are appointed on tenure basis; that the short tenures fixed under the scheme
would ~ofeat the very purpose of the research their being no continuity in the D
projects undertaken and when once the tenure is over, if there is no extension,
the research done in the couple of years would be rendered futile; that if there
is a sense of security with sustained follow-up under the control and supervision
of the institutions, it would be useful not only to the scholars but also to the
nation; that the UGC and CSIR Research Associateship are the first and E
perhaps the only avenues to doctorates intending to dedicate their lives for
research. If sufficient security is provided to them as by the end of their
Associateship they would be in a position to find any job else where, their
service in the institution would be useful and fruitful. Therefore, they implore
upon us for a direction to the respondents to evolve a scheme so that the
research and development in the nation is optimally supported and benefited F
by the scholarship and intellect of the Research Associates and also provide
a sense of security to them.

In resisting these writ petitions, the UGC has set out in detail the
nature of the Research Associateship scheme which was formulated in 1983 G
and discontinued in I 998. The research contemplated would cover even work
in humanities and social sciences including languages and science, engineering
and technology independently and on project basis. The scheme was available
to those who have completed their Ph.D. within the last two years and have
shown talent and competence for independent research. The UGC pointed
out that the Research Associates were not designated as lecturers nor were H
~
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A their emoluments comparable with that of the lecturers. The Research ·<Ii\
Associateship would not envisage the creation of any post or any <?ther
appointment and they are not working against specific posts since no posts
are created for such Associateship. The teaching work, if any, undertaken by
the Research Associate is part of the research or training and is not an
appointment to a substantive post. The contractual relationship was for a
B "maximum period of five years and there was no question of employment of
the said Research Associate. Even as late as May 5, 1997, the UGC decided
that the Research Associateship should continue only on tenure basis for a
period of three years extendable by two more years and such Associateship ,..
would be terminated at the end of it. Any fresh selection would be by
c application and selection for placement in the relevant fellowship bracket and
the UGC was not at all in favour of making the research scholars permanent.
The scheme was only to provide post-doctoral experience and it would not
possible to give permanence to the scholars. Still later on in March 1998 the
UGC decided to discontinue the scheme at the end of IXth Five Year Plan
due to acute shortage of funds. It was also made clear that the position of ,.
D Research Associates would continue to be available under the scheme of
Major Research Projects and other quality programmes under their: respective
grants on ad hoc contractual positions for the period of the project. Under the
UGC Scheme, there were 933 Research Associates working under various
Universities all over the country entailing an expenditure of Rs. 9 crores
E annually which would get enhanced to Rs.13 to Rs.14 crores in due course.
The UGC as such does not have any post of Research Associate and the
concerned scholars were working in the institutions all over the country and t
such institutions have their own recruitment rules for appointment thereto. ,',
r
Appointing Research Associate to any vacant post would be tantamount to
denying meritorious candidates the opportunity to apply for the said post and,
F therefore, making those posts available to the Research Associate would not
be appropriate and further various Universities being autonomous bodies
"'
have their own relevant recruitment rules to be applied in such matters.
.._
The UGC also brings out the difference between the Research I
Associates Scheme and the Research Scientists Scheme of the UGC. The
G Research Scientists Scheme was intended to build a cadre of Research
Scientists in Indian Universities to promote high quality research in science,
engineering and technology and humanities including social sciences by
providing opportunities to persons with outstanding merit. Unlike the Research .
Associates who were retained on a fixed amount much less than that of
H corresponding grades in Universities, the Research Scientists receive scales

t
~-

POST-DOCTORAL RES. ASSO. OF S.V. UNIVERSITYv.U.0.1. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 497

equivalent to Lecturer, Reader and Professor with all other benefits such A
dearness allowance, provident fund, etc. Therefore, the Research Scientists
Scheme had built into it a permanency and equivalence with University
teachers. On the other hand, the Research Associates scheme did not
contemplate either permanency and equivalence with University teachers in
any manner. The candidates with Ph.D. degree are eligible to apply for a
Research Associateship whereas for the Research Scientists Scheme, Ph.D. B
along with research experience of not less than two years is required at the
.. minimum grade of Research Scientists 'A' and the said scheme had been
revised which is also for a fixed non-renewable term of five years only and
this scheme has also been discontinued now.

The stand of the CSIR is also similar. The main features of the scheme
c
is to give placement to the Scientists on a temporary basis to facilitate them
in the meantime to find out appointment on regular basis. They are not given
any appointment but attached to a Government Department or State Industrial
Enterprises, National Labs., Universities/Scientific Institution etc. and they
may even be attached to an establishment in private sector. The main purpose D
and intention of the Scheme is to give placement to Pool Officers which is
) not against any post but is an unemployment support and the placement of
such a scientist as pool officer does not guarantee him any appointment with
the CSIR or the Government Department on regular basis. There is another
scheme called "Scheme of Quick Recruitment of Scientists (Fellows)' which
E
provides selection and such fellows will be on a contract for a period not
exceeding three years and it may be terminated during the prescribed period.
At present, only I 0% of the total Senior Research Associates under Scientists
Pool Scheme .and those scientists who have put in 15 years of research
service or more which include 13 years of experience in different kinds of
_, fellowship or Associateship and it is only such persons who are considered F
"' for absorption in regular establishments. The petitioners, it is contended, are
neither doing any research in any of the CSIR labs nor have they put in 15
years of research work with the CSIR system on account of which they
cannot be considered for absorption in the CSIR and that the scheme was
framed pursuant to an order made in C.A. No. 1680/1997. by this Court in
a matter arising from the order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal G
in Pratibha Mishra v. in 0.A. No. 83/96 and this aspect was further clarified
...._ by this Court in CSIR and Ors. v. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain, [2000] 4 SCC 186.
It is, therefore, contended that the kind of directions sought for in these
petitions cannot be granted.
H
~-

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners on a decision of this
Court in V.L. Chandra and Ors. v. All India Institute of Medical-Sciences,
[1990] 3 sec 39, in _which ad hoc appointments made in one project or
another continuing for long periods and thereafter on projects drying up,
researchers in such projects having worked for continuously for 10 to 15
years their services having been discontinued on the ground of absence of
B further projects would give rise to human.problem of deprivation of source
of sustenance as with the advancement in age they become disentitled to jobs
in government or public sector undertakings and, therefore, this Court gave
direction to evolve a scheme for building up a team of researchers in .
coordination with Health Ministry and to provide employment to the aggrieved '
c persons either as researchers or in any suitable employment until their inclusion
in the team is considered.

In Dr. V.P. Chaturvedi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1991] 4
SCC 171, this Court followed the decision rendered in V.L. Chandra's case
[supra] and similar directions were given in that case also. This Court in Dr.
D Ajay Kumar Jain's.case [supra] examined the scheme ofappointment as Pool
Officer under Scientists' Pool Scheme or as Scientist Fellow under the Scheme
of Quick Recruitment of Scientists [Fellow] for major Projects on contract
basis for a limited period and held that it did not entitle them to regularisation
of their services or absorption in CSIR and distinguished the decision in
Pratibha Mishra's case [supra] to which we have adverted to earlier.
E
The fact remains that in none of these cases the petitioners have worked
for a period of IO to 15 years. They have no doubt worked under different
schemes on tenure basis. Now what is sought for in these writ petitions is not
regularisation and that position was made clear by the learned counsel for the
F petitioners. On the other hand what was submitted was that the UGC and .,.,
CSIR must frame appropriate scheme to support scientific advancement '·
providing a healthy climate for the research fellows to carry on such work
and these research fellows who are petitioners before us can carry on such
work only with a sense of security for their continuity in the work done by
them which would be oeneficial to the country as a whole and also to these
G individual. The scheme evolved by UGC or CSIR is only a supportive
programme for the research fellows during the period of unemployment
initially for a period of five years. Such scheme will allow research fellows
who have 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
H them to carry on research on tenure basis. If that is so, it may not be accurate
POST-DOCTORAL RES. ASSO. OF S.V. UNIVERSITY v.U.O.L [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 499

to state that is only to encourage research that these research fellows have A
been engaged and not by way of support to them during the period of their
unemployment and if that aspect is borne in mind that the UGC or the CSIR
- have fram~d 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. B
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 fall out
.. under the Scheme. Therefore, it would be very difficult for us 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 C
whenever an occasion arises.

With the aforesaid observation, these writ petitions shall stand dismissed.
No costs.

S.K.S . Writ Petitions dismissed. D

....