# Dr. R.L. Srivastava v. Sam Higinbottom Institute Of Agriculture & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 813
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-04-07
- **Bench:** V.K. Shukla, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-r-l-srivastava-v-sam-higinbottom-institute-of-agriculture-ors-43691
- **Pages:** 22

## Text

_Characters 0–39,990 of 74,767. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39990 for what follows._

4 All. Dr. R.L. Srivastava Vs Sam Higinbottom Institute Of Agriculture & Ors.

813
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Writ A No.- 63934 Of 2015

Dr. R.L. Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
Sam Higinbottom Institute Of Agriculture & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Radha Kant Ojha

Counsel for Respondents:
Amit Negi, Pratik J. Nagar

Service Law - Project/contractual Appointment - Co-terminus Engagement - No right to absorption as a
regular employee - Employment ends automatically with project closure - Long continuation/CAS benefits
do not confer regular status. (Paras 8, 11, 13, 21-23, 30-33)

Regularisation - Mandamus - Not maintainable - No sanctioned post - Appointment not through regular
process - Umadevi, Pushpa Srivastava, Daya Lal principles applied. (Paras 15, 22-23, 30-31)

Contractual Appointment - Termination by efflux of time - Closure of ICAR project automatically ends
tenure - No need for separate termination order -- MOU - Absorption clause - Document not produced -
No presumption in absence of proof - General ICAR guidelines inapplicable to centrally funded projects
(Paras 12, 13, 18-20)

Constitution of India -- Article 30 -Minority Educational Institution -Autonomy in administration - No
obligation to absorb/regularise project staff - Financial/administrative freedom cannot be curtailed (Paras 2429)/Equity - Long service, hardship, age-bar cannot override statutory limitations - No vested right to
continue (Paras 21-23, 30-33)

Writ petition dismissed; no absorption or continuation permissible.

List of Cases cited:

1. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava v. Union of India, (1992 Supp (1) SCC 44).

2. State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1.

3. Daya Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 2 SCC 429.

4. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya v. Bal Kishan Soni, (1997) 6 SCC 605.
814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak v. State of Karnataka, (1996) 3 SCC 57.

6. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nodha Ram, (1995 Supp (1) SCC 49).

7. Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., 2002 (2) AWC 1100.

8. St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, (1992) 1 SCC 558.

(Delivered By Hon'ble M.C. Tripathi, J.)

1. Dr. R.L. Srivastava has prayed for following reliefs:-

"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 28.10.2015 (Annexure No.20 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no.3 as well
as the order dated 26.3.2015 (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no.1.

b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Sam
Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology & Sciences, Allahabad-respondent no.1 to
absorb/continue the petitioner in the regular cadre of the teaching staff or any other equivalent post
according to the Guidelines & MOU signed between respondent nos. 1 and 3 while accepting the
project and pay the salary on the regular basis month to month.

c. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
ICAR to adjust/absorb the petitioner in some other Centre which is already running under the same
project and pay salary to the petitioner.

d. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent not to interfere in peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Animal Scientist (Selection
Grade).

e. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and
proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that Allahabad Agricultural Institute, as it
was then called, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institution') was established and recognized initially
under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (in short, the Act 1973). The institution in question was
affiliated with University of Allahabad. In the year 2000 the institution got the status of Deemed
University under the provisions contained in University Grants Commission Act and Rules framed
thereunder and also under the Act 1973. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi (
in short, 'ICAR') vide its letter dated 15th November, 1984 floated a Project known as "All India
Coordinated Research Project for Increase and Utilization of Animal Energy with Enhance System
Efficiency" (hereinafter referred to as 'the project') and the said project was sanctioned for
institution in the year 1984. The project in question started with effect from 1.7.1987. The project
was meant for scientific study on increase utilization of the animal energy and the same was
4 All. Dr. R.L. Srivastava Vs Sam Higinbottom Institute Of Agriculture & Ors.

815
opened at 7 places. The said project was sanctioned from A.P. CESS (Agriculture Produces) Funds.
In the year 1983 the ICAR issued general guidelines for running the said project. As per general
guidelines, a person under the said project would be appointed in accordance with normal
recruitment rules and procedures applicable to the State Government/Grantee institution and the
staff appointed will for all purposes be treated as employees of the grantee institution as a part of its
approved cadre and will be subject to the administrative control of that institution. The scale of pay,
allowances, promotions etc. applicable to the staff of the project will be the same as admissible
under the grantee institution. A Memorandum of Understanding reached between the ICAR and the
institution and they signed the said agreement.

3. The Board of Directors of the institution sanctioned several posts including the post of
Assistant Animal Scientist in the aforesaid project. The vacancy in question was advertised in daily
newspaper 'Northern India Patrika' on 11.7.1987. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement the
petitioner applied for and was offered appointment letter dated 29.9.1988 in the ICAR project on
'Utilisation of Animal Energy with Enhanced System Efficiency' as Assistant Animal Scientist in
the Department of Agricultural Engineering of the institution with effect from as early as possible
but not later than October 10, 1988 to 31.3.1990 or till the termination of the project, whichever is
earlier. The appointment letter dated 29.9.1988 reads as under:-

"Mr. Ramesh Lal Srivastava

 Date: 29.9.1988
S/o Shri Jagdish Lal Srivastava
Vill. Banagaon (South Tola)
P.O. Banagaon, District Gorakhpur - 273 403

Dear Mr. Srivastava,

I am happy to offer you an appointment in the ICAR project on Utilisation of
Animal Energy with enhanced system efficiency as Asstt. Animal Scientist in the Department of
Agil. Engy.in the grade of Rs. 700-1600 with starting basic pay of Rs.700.00 per month plus the
ICAR approved allowances with effect from as early as possible but not later than October 10,
1988 to 31.3.1990 or till the termination of the Project, whichever is earlier.

That in the event of your wishing to leave the service of the Institute before the
termination of this appointment as specified above, you shall give in writing at least 30 days' notice
of intent to resign. However, if the Institute wishes to terminate your service earlier, it may give
you thirty days' notice at any time.

In the event of any misconduct or neglect of your duty on your part or any breach
of the Institute rules, your service will be dispensed with, without any notice.

If the above terms and conditions are acceptable to you, please sign and return the
duplicate copy of this letter to the undersigned as token of yhour acceptance, so as to reach him by
7.10.88.
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

 Yours sincerely

 sd/-
Note: Salary will be paid only

(Y.B. Singh)
when funds are available

Director & Executive Secretary

 Board of Directors, AAI"

4. He was again appointed vide appointment letter dated 29.3.1990, w.e.f. 1.4.1990 to
31.3.1995 and thereafter by letter dated 11.11.1994 his appointment was again extended from
1.4.1995 to till termination of the project. The petitioner was given all benefits of permanent
employees and after completion of 8 years of service from 8.10.1996, he was granted benefit on the
post of Scientist Senior Scale of Rs.3000-5000 under Career Advancement Scheme. Thereafter on
29.11.2001 on the recommendation of Assessment Committee and as per approval of the Vice
Chancellor of the institution, the petitioner was accorded benefit on the post of Scientist (Selection
Grade) in the pay scale of Rs.12000-420-18300 under CAS of ICAR with effect from 8.10.1999.
On 17.7.2003 the petitioner was granted two additional increments w.e.f. 19.5.2003 after
completion of D. Phil.

5. On 01.1.2015 the Project Coordinator of Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering
(ICAR), Bhopal informed the Vice Chancellor of the institution that a decision was taken in the
14th EFC meeting held on 9th June, 2014 at Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi to
close the centre of the AICRP on UAE located at the institution w.e.f. 1.4.2015 (financial year
2015-16). Due to closure of Research Project, services of the petitioner had come to an end, as the
terms of the appointment of the petitioner provided that he was being appointed for the Project only
and his appointment would come to an end by efflux of time or when the Project is over. The
petitioner had proceeded to move a representation before the Vice Chancellor of the institution on
12.3.2015 for being absorbed as a staff of the institution. The Vice Chancellor (Administration) of
the institution had informed the head of the institution that absorption of staff of the Project would
result in expenditure of Rs.1 Crore per year and in absence of any work being available, the
University would not be able to bear the burden. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner
had proceeded to approach this Court by means of Writ A No.17644 of 2015, which was disposed
of on 26.8.2015 by giving liberty to petitioner to make a representation before respondent no. 3,
within two weeks' and the respondent no. 3 would consider and decide the same in accordance with
law by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within eight weeks, after affording
opportunity to respondent no. 2. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner has filed a detailed
representation before the respondent no.3 on 3.9.2015. By the impugned order dated 28.10.2015 the
Director General, ICAR, New Delhi rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that
in the offer of appointments in question it had been explicitly mentioned that the appointment of
the petitioner in the institution was till the termination of the project and the appointment of the
petitioner in the Project was co-terminus with the Project.

6. Shri Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Akhilesh Kumar Singh,
appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner applied for and was appointed on the post
4 All. Dr. R.L. Srivastava Vs Sam Higinbottom Institute Of Agriculture & Ors.

817
of Assistant Animal Scientist in the project in question w.e.f. 8.10.1988 to March, 1990. Thereafter
his services were extended from April, 1990 to 31.3.1995 and again from April 1, 1995 to till
termination of the project in question. The petitioner was given all benefits of permanent employee.
After completion of 8 years of service he was promoted on the post of Scientist Senior Scale from
8.10.1996 in the pay scale of Rs.3000-5000. He was further promoted on 8.10.1999 on the post of
Animal Scientist (Selection Grade) in the pay scale of Rs.12000-67000. He was granted two
additional increments after completion of D. Phil. The petitioner received a letter dated 1.1.2015 on
6.2.2015 addressed to the Vice Chancellor that the Allahabad Centre will be closed from 1.4.2015.
After getting the aforesaid letter, the petitioner represented the matter on 12.3.2015 for placement
on the same post and rank available in the University. As per the guidelines and MOU, the
petitioner will be the employee of the grantee institution and entitled for all benefits as applicable
to the regular cadre staff. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1988 and continued in service
for more than 26 years.

7. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there are several
government staffs retiring every year in the institution and the institution is transferring selffinanced course employees of their personal choice on that government posts without
advertisement or inviting applications. The petitioner has more than 26 years of experience but he
has not been transferred on that post while junior to him has been transferred on that posts, while it
has been provided in the guidelines that for all purposes the staffs will be treated as State
Government/Grantee institute employee. The ICAR had formulated general guidelines for
formulation, processing, scrutiny, sanction, implementation and evaluation of the research project
to be financed from AP Cess fund. As per the Clause 12 (i) the staff for the project scheme should
be appointed in accordance with the normal recruitment rules and procedures applicable to the
State Government/Grantee institutions. They will for all purposes be treated as employees of the
State Government/Grantee institution, as a part of its approved cadre and will be subject to the
administrative control of that State Government/institution. As per clause 12 (ii) the scale of pay,
allowances etc. applicable to the staff of the Scheme will be the same as admissible under the
respective State Government/Grantee institution. The appointment letter was issued by the
Executive Secretary of Board of Directors of the institution but till date the petitioner has not
received termination letter.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that by perusal of the MOU and
guidelines entered into between ICAR and University, all employees, who were appointed under
the project, will be treated as employees of the University and after termination of the project, they
will be absorbed in the University in regular cadre, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be
absorbed. He submitted that alongwith the project in question, two more projects were also
discontinued and as per information of the petitioner, the employees, who were working in the
aforesaid two projects, have been absorbed in the institution including Class-III, Class-IV and
Teachers. While conceptualizing the project in question, a MOU had been entered between the
ICAR and the institution with categorical undertaking that in case the project would not subsist, the
employees would be absorbed and the said document had been signed by the institution and at no
point of time, the respondents had taken any plea or made any reservation on the ground of their
818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
minority status and consequently the project had been started and the said claim had not been
refuted or denied while filing the counter affidavit. The respondents have no right to change their
stand and as such doctrine of estoppel will be attracted in the matter. He has placed his reliance on
Section 89 of the Evidence Act and as such, if the said MOU is not available on record, then the
presumption is liable to be drawn in favour of the petitioner. He has also submitted that the right of
minority under Article 30 of the Constitution of India to administer is not absolute and this is not
the case of petitioner that at the time of initial engagement, rules and regulations of the institution
had been violated and the petitioner having all the requisite qualifications was appointed against the
said post and consequently the rules, which were applicable to other employees of the University,
were applicable on the petitioner. As per Rules, Regulations of the institution and Charitable
Society under Article-A II, "employee" means any person appointed by the University, and
includes teachers and other staffs of the University. The petitioner is an employee of the institution
and all the rules shall be applicable on him. He has relied upon judgements in Union of India &
ors vs. Vartak Labour Union, Civil Appeal Nos.2129-2130 of 2004 decided on 4 March, 2011 in
support of his submission. Relevant paras 13 to 21 of the judgement are reproduced hereinafter:-

"13. We are of the opinion that there is force in the contentions urged on behalf of
the appellants and these must prevail. We are convinced that the Division Bench has erroneously
construed the Office memo dated 2nd February, 2001 as an approved scheme for absorption and
regularization of the casual workers. It is manifest from a bare reading of the said memo that it was
merely in the nature of an inter-department communication between the Border Roads
Development Board headquarters and its officials. We do not find any substance in the stand of
learned counsel for the respondent that the appellants are withholding the approved scheme from
this Court. This plea of the respondent that a final scheme did come into existence on 2nd February
2001, stands belied 2 (1983) 3 SCC 401 from the letter of the Border Roads Development Board
dated 22nd July 2002. It would be useful to extract the relevant portion of the said letter, which
reads:

"In the year 1993, a Labour Welfare Scheme i.e. Scheme for Grant of Temporary
Status and Regularisation of Casual Workers was formulated. Thus, when we approached DOPT
for approval to the scheme proposed by DGBP, they did not support our proposal and advised us
that if we felt that there are sufficient grounds to formulate a separate scheme which is at variance
with the scheme of DOPT, we may approach the Cabinet for approval of such scheme. The
Secretariat delved into the issue at length and came to the conclusion that there is not sufficient
justification for going to the Cabinet for approval of a separate scheme. This decision has already
been communicated to the Dte GBR vide our letter No.BRDB/04(129)/2000-GE.II dated 24th June,
2002."

14. It is trite that inter-departmental communications and notings in departmental
files do not have the sanction of law, creating a legally enforceable right. In Sethi Auto Service
Station & Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.3, a Division Bench of this Court, in
which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) was a member has observed thus:
4 All. Dr. R.L. Srivastava Vs Sam Higinbottom Institute Of Agriculture & Ors.

819
"Needless to add that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings
in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it
reaches the final decision-making authority in the department, gets his approval and the final order
is communicated to the person concerned."

15. Similar views are echoed in Jasbir Singh Chhabra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab &
Ors.4. This Court has observed that:

"It must always be remembered that in a democratic polity like ours, the functions
of the Government are carried out by different individuals at different levels. The issues and policy
matters which are required to be decided by the Government are dealt with by several functionaries
some of whom may record notings on the files favouring a particular person or group of persons.
Someone may suggest a particular line of action, which may not be conducive to public interest and
others may suggest adoption of a different mode in larger public interest. However, the final
decision is required to be taken by the designated authority keeping in view the larger public
interest."

16. We are of the opinion that the respondent Union's claim for regularization of its
members merely because they have been working for BRO for a considerable period of time cannot
be granted in light of several decisions of this Court, wherein it has been consistently held that
casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or
casual worker has been engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to
be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of
the process envisaged by the relevant rules. (See: Secretary, 4 (2010) 4 SCC 192 State of Karnataka
& Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors.5; Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & Ors.6; State of Karnataka &
Ors. Vs. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak & Ors.7; Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal &
Anr.; Satya Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.8 and Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Indian Railway
Construction Company Limited & Ors.9.)

17. In Umadevi (3) (supra), a Constitution Bench of this Court had observed that:

"It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the
employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from
them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more
wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in
the department concerned on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage
agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by
themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly
recruited on the basis of the relevant rules.

No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such
employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal
work. There is no 5 (2006) 4 SCC 1 6 (2008) 10 SCC 1 7 (2010) 3 SCC 115 8 (2010) 4 SCC 179 9
(2010) 11 SCC 733 fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or
temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has
been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment
could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily
wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed.
That would be treating unequals as equals.

It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though
they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled."

18. Explaining the dictum laid down in Umadevi (supra), a three judge Bench in
Official Liquidator (supra) has observed that:

"In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), the Constitution Bench again considered
the question whether the State can frame scheme for regularisation of the services of ad
hoc/temporary/daily wager appointed in violation of the doctrine of equality or the one appointed
with a clear stipulation that such appointment will not confer any right on the appointee to seek
regularisation or absorption in the regular cadre and whether the Court can issue mandamus for
regularisation or absorption of such appointee and answered the same in negative."

19.In light of the settled legal position and on a conspectus of the factual scenario
noted above, the impugned directions by the High Court cannot be sustained. These are set aside
accordingly.
20. Before parting with the case, we are constrained to observe that the conduct of
the appellants in engaging casual workers for a period of less than six months, and giving them
artificial breaks so as to ensure that they do not become eligible for permanent status, as evidenced
from the additional affidavit dated 23rd April, 2010 does not behove the Union of India and its
instrumentalities, which are supposed to be model employers. With anguish, we extract the relevant
paragraph of the said affidavit:

"Relying upon the provisions contained in Paragraph 501 to 518 of the Regulation,
it was contended that the casual labourers are mustered on daily or monthly basis. If on monthly
rates, the period of engagement shall be for a minimum period of six months. It is a fact that large
number of casual labourers have worked with Project Vartak for number of years but their period
of engagement at no stage has existed more than six months at a time. Their services are terminated
before completion of six month and as per requirement they are recruited afresh by publishing Part
II order by Mustering Unit. Due to the fact that they have not been in continuous engagement for
more than six months they do not get the status of permanent employee and accordingly as per
4 All. Dr. R.L. Srivastava Vs Sam Higinbottom Institute Of Agriculture & Ors.

821
Paragraph 503 of the Regulation referred to above, the casual personnel are not eligible for any
other privileges for continued employment under the Government."

21.Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, where members of
the respondent Union have been employed in terms of the Regulations and have been consistently
engaged in service for the past thirty to forty years, of course with short breaks, we feel, the Union
of India would consider enacting an appropriate regulation/scheme for absorption and
regularization of the services of the casual workers engaged by BRO for execution of its on-going
projects.

22.In the final analysis, the appeals are allowed, and the impugned judgments and
orders are set aside. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own
costs."

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on judgement in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation vs. State of Karnataka & ors 2002 (8) SCC 481, in which the Apex Court had
considered the scope and ambit of Article 30 of the Constitution and framed various questions and
one of the questions 5 (c), which is relevant in the present case, was also framed. He submitted that
in Sinchi Educational Society & another vs. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi &
ors (2010) 8 SCC 49, the Apex Court had laid down that regulations could relate to guidelines for
the efficiency and excellence of educational standard, ensuring the security of the services of the
teachers or other employees. In Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College vs. T. Jose and
ors (2007) 1 SCC 386 the Apex Court considered the extent of right to administer the educational
institute and the extent of permissible regulations by the State. The Apex Court held that State can
regulate the service conditions of teachers of the minority institutions to ensure quality of
education.

10. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Negi, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-institution, on the other hand, has, however, submitted that
the appointment of the petitioner was co-terminus with the project in question and the project has
been terminated by the ICAR w.e.f. 1.4.2015. The petitioner has no legal right to continue in
service and as such no directive can be issued being as minority institution. He has relied upon the
judgements in Gurbachan Lal vs. Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra and ors (2007)
11 SCC 102; State of Karnataka and ors vs. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak and ors (2010) 3 SCC
115; Rameshwar Dayal vs. Indian Railway Construction Company Limited and others (2010)
11 SCC 733 and Indian Council of Agriculture Research, New Delhi vs. Raja Balwant Singh
College, Agra and ors (2003) 1 AWC 750 in support of his submission.

11. Shri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 has vehemently
opposed the writ petition precisely on the ground that admittedly the petitioner was appointed as
Animal Scientist in the Department of Agriculture Engineering of the institution vide appointment
letter dated 29.9.1988 and the appointment of petitioner was till 31.3.1990 or till the termination of
the project in question. By letter dated 29.3.1990 his services were continued till 31.3.1995 or till
822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the termination of the project, as the case may be. Again his services were extended by letter dated
11.11.1994 till the termination of the project. The terms and conditions were clearly provided in the
appointment letter dated 29.9.1988 that the said appointment was valid till 31.3.1990 or till the
termination of the project, as the case may be and the salary would be paid to the petitioner only
when funds are available. The petitioner had accepted the terms and conditions and never raised
any objection regarding terms and conditions of his appointment letters, rather he acquiesced to the
terms and conditions of the appointment letters and consequently at this belated stage after 27 years
he may not be permitted to raise or challenge the terms and conditions. He was initially engaged
purely as contractual employee in a project and his appointment came to an end with the
termination of the project and as such, he cannot claim any absorption as of right in the ICAR. He
has relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and ors vs. Daya Lal and ors
(2011) 2 SCC 429, in which it was held that direction for regularization, absorption or permanent
continuance cannot be issued, unless the employee claiming regularization had been appointed in
pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules and against the sanctioned
vacant posts. He has also relied on Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur vsl
Bal Krishna Soni and ors (1997) 5 SCC 86, in which it was held that staff employed under a
scheme sponsored by Indian Council of Agricultural Research could continue only till the scheme
existed and regularization could not be claimed by the employee and State of Himanchal Pradesh
vs. Nodha Ram (1998) SCC (Labour and Service) 478 that when the project is completed and
closed, the employees have to go along with its closure.

12. Shri Pratik J. Nagar further submitted that when the project comes to an end, the
employees, who are working in the project, will not have any vested right. The liability of the
employees of the project in question, in which the petitioner was engaged, is on the host institution
and the respondent no.3 has nothing to do with the services of the petitioner after closure of the
project and throughout the petitioner was under the administrative control of the respondent nos. 1
and 2. The ICAR in 12th Plan Economic Finance Committee (2012-17) in its meeting held on
9.6.2014 decided to close 3 Centres of the project considering their performance namely SHIATS,
Allahabad, Jorhat and BAU Ranchi w.e.f. 31.3.2015. He has also refuted the allegation, that those
persons, who were engaged in the project, were reinstated in IIT Kharakpur, on the ground that the
said institution i.e. IIT Kharakpur is run and managed by the Union of India whereas the the present
institution is a minority institution and having special rights guaranteed under Article 30 of
Constitution of India, no interference can be made. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner is
entirely on different footing and as such, no directives can be issued for absorption of the
petitioner.

13. Heard rival submissions and perused the record.

14. As much has been said in reference to the minority status of the institution concerned at
the very outset we proceed to look into the backdrop of the fact. The history of the institution is that
while working under the North India Mission of Presbyterian Church in Allahabad Christian
College, Dr. Sam Higginbottom became deeply involved in the social and economic problems of
the people around him and his deep thinking in the matter took him to the conclusion that basic
4 All. Dr. R.L. Srivastava Vs Sam Higinbottom Institute Of Agriculture & Ors.

823
socio-economic problem of India was related to agriculture. Accordingly, the "Allahabad
Agricultural Institute" was founded in the year 1910 by the Christian community on the southern
bank of river Yamuna in the district of Allahabad under the Leadership of Dr. Sam Higginbottom
for improvement of Agricultural Sciences and Technology in India for material and spiritual
progress of the Country.

15. The AAI was established in 1910 as a Department of Allahabad Christian College
(presently known as Ewing Christian College). In 1912, the Agricultural and Technical
Departments of the College were shifted to the present site of the Institution. In April 1913, the
Agricultural and Technical Departments were bifurcated from the Arts and Science Departments of
the Ewing Christian College under an independent budget. On 24.8.1916, separate council was
constituted with the Principal of the College as its Ex-officio Chairman for the management of the
Agricultural Department. In 1918, the Agricultural and Technical Department was de-linked from
the Ewing Christian College altogether and was named as "Allahabad School of Agriculture". On
1.2.1919, the School was re-christened as the "Allahabad Agricultural Institute". In the year 1924,
three years' course in Farm Mechanics (restricted to Christians only) was started to prepare students
for development of Rural Agricultural Farms. In the year 1924 the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh), recognised the AAI for a two years'
Diploma Course in Agriculture. In the year 1932 the University of Allahabad recognised the AAI
for B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree. In the year 1934, the Government of India established Imperial
Dairy Institute, Bangalore for studies in the field of Dairy Sciences and in the same year it
authorised the AAI to start Indian Dairy Diploma Course in Dairy Technology and Animal
Husbandry.

16. In the year 1942, the University of Allahabad permitted the AAI to start B.Sc. Classes
in Agricultural Engineering. In the year 1964, the University of Allahabad permitted the AAI to
start Post-graduate classes in Agricultural Engineering, Dairy Technology, Agronomy, Agricultural
Extension, Agricultural Bio-Chemistry, Animal Science, Horticulture, Agricultural Economics and
Rural Sociology and Plant Pathology and to conduct research work. In the same year, the Institute
also started B.Sc. (Home Economics) Course for girls. The Government of Uttar Pradesh
constituted a high level committee for re-organisation of agricultural education and research in
Uttar Pradesh. The Committee found that the AAI was of the status of an Agricultural and
Technological University as it had wide resources and it recommended as an interim measure that
the AAI should be raised to the status of an Autonomous College. As an associate college of the
University of Allahabad, the AAI had its own Board of Studies, duly recognized by the University
of Allahabad, which appointed its own examiners and set the papers. The examination schemes
were prepared by the Registrar of the Institute and the University used to approve it. The AAI
conducted all the examinations in its own campus and through its own resources and personnel.
Practically, the entire work of teaching and examination of the AAI was done by the Institute itself,
except the conferring of Degree which alone was done by the University of Allahabad. As an
associated college of the University of Allahabad the AAI was having eight Colleges, i.e. (i)
College of Engineering and Agriculture Technology, (ii) College of Agriculture, (iii) College of
Rural Management, (iv) College of Religious Education, (v) College of Health and Environmental
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sciences, (vi) College of Home Economics and Women's Development, (vii) College of
Continuing and Non-Formal Education and (viii) College of Dairy Technology and Animal
Husbandry. The University of Allahabad as back as in the year 1978 requested the State
Government to recognize the AAI as a Professional Post-graduate College under Section 38(3) of
U.P. State Universities Act 1973 read with Statute 13.01 of the First Statutes of University of
Allahabad, 1976, so that necessary privileges and benefits may be extended to it. Later on, the
Academic Council of the University of Allahabad in its meeting held on 23.07.1988 (Resolution
No. 82) approved the Status of the AAI as a Professional Post-graduate College.

17. Subsequently the matter was taken up by the Executive Council of the University of
Allahabad and the Executive Council in its meeting dated 23-11-1991 (Resolution No.172)
unanimously approved the recommendation of the Academic Council for giving the status of an
Associated Professional Post-gradudate Institution alike Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering
College, Allahabad, to the Allahabad Agricultural Institute and for declaring an institution as a
Deemed to be University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, the University
Grants Commission had framed Guidelines in the year 1992. It has been considered to be a premier
and renowned minority institution of the country by the Apex Court in the case of St. Stephen's
College versus The University of Delhi, reported in 1992, Supreme Court Cases, Volume I, Page
558 (on page 574). Thereafter, in accordance with the Guidelines of 1992 (for declaring an
institution to be a Deemed to be University) the AAI submitted its proposal for being declared a
Deemed to be a University on 30.8.1994. This proposal was forwarded by the Ministry of Human
Resource Development to the University Grants Commission for consideration.

18. The State of Uttar Pradesh by its letter no. 2348/12-8-96-900(7)/94, dated 16th October
1996 wrote to the Secretary, University Grants Commission that it has ''No Objection' to the
Institute being declared a Deemed to be a University. The State Government further assured the
University Grants Commission that it shall continue with the grant for the sanctioned posts, even
after the grant of Deemed University Status. Pursuant to the submission of proposal by the AAI for
being declared a Deemed to be a University, the Expert Team of the University Grants Commission
visited the AAI on 15th & 16th May, 1997. As per the recommendation of the Expert Committee,
the AAI revised its Memorandum and Articles of Association, Rules etc. along with evidence of
financial security such as endowment etc. and submitted the same to the University Grants
Commission on 15.4.1998. It also clearly mentioned in paragraph (iv) of the communication that
"That the UGC expert team visited the Institute and it is submitted that the team was fully satisfied
as the Institute fulfills all academic and infrastructural requirements as per UGC norms for Deemed
University. The Institute has also submitted revised constitution (Memorandum of Association and
Articles) as per UGC guidelines and under Article 30(I) of the Constitution of India ". Article VIII
of the revised Memorandum of Association / Bye-laws submitted by the AAI to the University
Grants Commission clearly speaks of protecting the rights of Minority Institution as guaranteed
under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India.

19. On the basis of the (i) revised Memorandum and Articles of Association, (ii) No
Objection Certificate by the State Government and (iii) Financial assurance by the State
4 All. Dr. R.L.