CHHOTE LAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were appointed as ResearchAssociates in terms of a scheme formulated by Indian Council of AgriculturalResearch. The scheme is referred as 'General Guidelines for the formulation,processing, scrutiny, sanction, implementation and evaluation of research schemesto be financed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research from its agriculturalproduce cess funds. Para 16 of this scheme states that "a Research Associate shallbe selected by a Selection Committee to be constituted by the Principal Investigatoror the University/Institution in accordance with Rules in existence there, or by theManagement Committee in case of ICAR institute. The appointment will not be aregular employment, but restricted in the duration of the project/scheme".

(2.) . Initially the petitioners were appointed somewhere in the year 1986 and1987. There were similar other appointees as well at different places. When therewas a proposal or actual action terminating the services of these Research Associates writ petitions were filed in Allahabad High Court and ultimately the mattercame up before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9865-1971 /1991. The Supreme Court allowed the petition. The Supreme Court pointed outthat once someone is inducted into a research project in any of the three categoriesthere can be no justification to keep him out before the project is completed exceptin cases of inefficiency or indiscipline. The Supreme Court directed that all thethree categories of the people associated with the research programmes shouldhave employment co-terminus with the projects.

(3.) . Subsequently, the petitioners were re-employed following the aforesaidorder of the Supreme Court. However, in January, 1993 the Project Director of theICAR wrote to the G.B. Pant University which is the third respondent here statingthat-