# Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi v. Raja Balwant Singh College, Agra and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 345
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41675 of 2001
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Yatindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indian-council-of-agricultural-research-krishi-bhawan-new-delhi-v-raja-balwant-39782
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
Termination of Temporary employees-
temporary employees have no right to
the post- The termination of services is
not punitive and hence it is valid- When
there is a conflict between law and
equity it is the law which is to prevail, in
accordance with the latin, maxima "dura
lex sed lex," which means, 'the law is
hard but it is the law'.

Held -para 13)

When there is a conflict between law and
equity it is the law which is to prevail, in
accordance with the Latin maxim 'dura
lex sed lex,' which means, 'the law is
hard but it is the law.
Case law referred:
AIR 1982 SC 1107 in 1999 (2) SCC 317
1997 (2) LLJ 677, 1996 (1) SCC 773
AIR 2002 SC 3088, AIR 1975 SC 1087

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Moti Lal V. State of U.P. and others
345
regular
appointment
as
Tube-well-
Operator on 18.1.1967 which is not within
the exception of Regulation 370 of Civil
Service Regulations and if the same is not
covered, it gives a right to the petitioner
to get pension even assuming his
resignation is accepted in the month of
December, 1985. No other point was
urged. The view of the respondents that
the petitioner has put in less than 20 years
of service, is rejected.

6. In view of the aforesaid the writ
petition deserves to be allowed and is
hereby allowed. The respondents are
directed to consider the case of the
petitioner for pension in the light of the
observations made in this judgement from
the date of production of certified copy of
this order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 9 JANUARY, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41675 of 2001

Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
...Petitioner
Versus
Raja Balwant Singh College, Agra and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.N. Tewari
Sri Vivek Misha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Suresh Singh
Sri A.K. Goel
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
Termination of Temporary employees-
temporary employees have no right to
the post- The termination of services is
not punitive and hence it is valid- When
there is a conflict between law and
equity it is the law which is to prevail, in
accordance with the latin, maxima "dura
lex sed lex," which means, 'the law is
hard but it is the law'.

Held -para 13)

When there is a conflict between law and
equity it is the law which is to prevail, in
accordance with the Latin maxim 'dura
lex sed lex,' which means, 'the law is
hard but it is the law.
Case law referred:
AIR 1982 SC 1107 in 1999 (2) SCC 317
1997 (2) LLJ 677, 1996 (1) SCC 773
AIR 2002 SC 3088, AIR 1975 SC 1087

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
against
the
order
of
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 27.4.2001
copy of which is Annexure 10 to the writ
petition.

2. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties.

3.

The
petitioner
(hereinafter
referred to as I.C.A.R.) is a society
registered under Societies Registration
Act. The Minister for Agriculture is exofficio President of the Society and it is
wholly funded by the Govt. of India. As
stated in para 3 of the writ petition, the
society was set up for undertaking
scientific research in Agriculture, Animal
Husbandry and other allied subjects. The
research work is done by various
institutions situated all over the country.
The number of scientists and helping staff
and their qualifications are fixed by the
I.C.A.R. The I.C.A.R. does not make
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
346
selection
or
appointment
of
such
employees nor are they employees of
I.C.A.R. The grantee college/institution
invites applications and appoints staff
required for the project. The pay scale is
determined by the I.C.A.R. but they work
under the supervision and control of the
grantee institution and are governed by
the rules and regulations of the institution
in all matters, such as leave, holidays etc.
The Indian Council for Agricultural
Research has no control or supervision
over their work. The I.C.A.R. only
provides funds for the project and nothing
more and it has not to bear any
expenditure on pension etc. All projects
approved for the grantee institutions are
of temporary nature and are sanctioned
for specified periods, normally for a
period of five years, and at the end of the
project the work done is reviewed. The
staff recruited is appointed on temporary
basis and no guarantee is given that on
completion of the project they will be
absorbed. The project employees have no
legal right to remain in service after the
project comes to an end. In para 9 of the
writ petition it is stated that a project titled
as "Use of Saline water in Agriculture"
was approved for Raja Balwant Singh
College, Agra respondent no.1 in the year
1972 . This project was extended by the
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
in the year 1975 named as "Management
of Salt Effected Soil & Use of Saline
Water for Agriculture. The respondent
nos. 3 to 6 were selected by the said
college after due advertisement and were
appointed on various dates as mentioned
in para 10 of the writ petition True copies
of the appointment orders are Annexures
1 to 4 to the writ petition.

4. The management of the college
terminated the services of the respondent
nos. 3 to 6 on restructuring of the project
by letters dated 28.8.1993 Annexures 5 to
8. The respondent nos. 3 to 6 who were
working on the project started claiming
regularization of their services in the
Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
The respondent nos. 3 to 6 filed O.A. No.
281
of
1996
before
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal to which the
ICAR filed objection stating that they
being project employees have no right of
regularization and their claim was liable
to be rejected. A true copy of the
submission filed on behalf of ICAR
before the Tribunal is Annexure 9 to the
writ petition. However, by means of the
judgment dated 27.4.2001 the Tribunal
has held that respondent nos. 3 to 6 are
liable to be absorbed by the I.C.A.R. True
copy of the impugned judgment is
Annexure 10 to the writ petition.

5. The petitioner submits that the
respondent nos. 3 to 6 were not
employees of the petitioner and have no
right to claim absorption. The posts in
which they were working do not exist in
the project any more. It is also submitted
that the Tribunal has no justification to
direct the creation of posts or giving
employment to the respondent no. 3 to 6.
The employees of each project are
selected by the sponsoring institute
according to the nature of research to be
done and the employees of one project
cannot be employed for any other project
of Research.

6. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have
filed a counter affidavit and we have
perused the same. In para 7 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the petitioner
launched a coordinated scheme for
research on use of Saline Water in
Agriculture during the Fourth Five Year
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhawan V. R.B.S. College, Agra & others
347
Plan period at several centers and the
respondent no. 1 College was selected for
the aforesaid scheme as one of the
centers. The petitioner financed the
scheme as 100 percent sponsored scheme
during the Fourth Five Year Plan from the
grants to be given to the College by the
Govt. of India. The Members of the staff
employed on the aforesaid Scheme were
governed by the aforesaid terms and
conditions and the guidelines issued by
the petitioner from time to time. Initially
the aforesaid Scheme for research was for
the Fourth Five Year Plan period vide
letter dated 14.4.1972 but it was renewed
for the 5th Five Year Plan period vide
letter dated 22.4.1975, for the 6th Five
Year Plan period vide letter dated
20.3.1980, for the 7th Five Year Plan
period vide letter dated 3.10.1986 and for
the 8th Five Year Plan period vide letter
dated 1.5.199, true copies of which are
annexed as Annexure CA-1 and CA-2 to
the writ petition. In para 8 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the respondent
nos. 3 to 6 were appointed on temporary
basis under the aforesaid scheme in
accordance with the terms and conditions
of the scheme on contractual basis for the
period of the Scheme. When the aforesaid
scheme during the 7th Five Year Plan
came to an end the 8th Five Year Plan
changed the staffing pattern and also
reduced the strength of the staff vide letter
dated 31.5.1993. The college had no
option but to terminate the services of the
respondent nos. 3 to 6. In para 11 of the
counter affidavit it is stated that the
College had requested the petitioner
through letter dated 10.7.1993 to permit
adjustment of respondent nos. 3 to 6, but
when the petitioner did not respond the
college had no option but to terminate the
services of the respondent nos. 3 to 6 as
the appointments of the respondent nos. 3
to 6 were on temporary basis. Photostat
copy of the letter dated 10.7.1993 is
Annexure CA 3 to the counter affidavit.
In para 13 of the counter affidavit it is
stated that the grantee institutions have a
very limited role in the appointment of the
staff of the scheme of the petitioner. In
para 15 it is stated that the college is not
responsible for adjusting the staff of the
scheme/project after completion of the
project/scheme or after restructuring of
the scheme.

7. A counter affidavit has also been
filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 6
and we have perused the same. In para 13
it is stated that the Research Project at
R.B.S. College, Agra continued for the
8th Five Year Plan (1992-97) with a
further
stipulation
that
the
Project
Coordinator of the All India Coordinated
Research Project Saline Water shall locate
the new centers and operationalise the
same
at
Tamilnadu
Agricultural
University and Haryana Agricultural
University, Hisar during the 8th Five Year
Plan. In paragraph 15 and 16 of the
counter affidavit it is stated that the
respondent no.3 to 6 were initially
appointed
after
due
selection.
In
paragraph 28 of the counter affidavit it is
stated that ICAR vide sanction letter dated
5.11.99 has conveyed the sanction of the
Government of India for implementing
the
ongoing
All
India
Coordinated
Research Project on Salt affected soils
and use of Saline Water in agriculture
during the IX Five Year Plan period as
before at all existing Research Centers
including the respondent College. As such
the answering respondents are entitled for
their adjustment in the said Project or
another ongoing All India Coordinated
Research Project. Photocopy of the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
348
relevant extract of the sanction order is
Annexure-CA-8 to the counter affidavit.

8.

A
Supplementary
Counter
Affidavit
was
filed
on
behalf
of
respondent no. 3 to 6 and we have
perused the same.

9. It is well settled that abolition of a
post is a management function and an
employee cannot have anything to say in
this matter vide K. Rajendran V. State of
Tamil Nadu AIR 1982 SC 1107. In 1999
(2) SCC 317 Rajendra V. State of
Rajasthan the Supreme Court has held
that an employee has no right to continue
when the post is abolished.

10. In 1997 (2) LLJ 677 Joyachan
M. Sebastian v. The Director General
and others the Supreme Court has held
that on abolition of post, the holder of the
post has no right to continue on the post.

11. Similarly, in State of Himachal
Pradesh V. Ashwani Kumar 1996 (1)
SCC 773 the Supreme Court has observed
that when the Project is completed and
closed due to non-availability of funds,
the employees have to go alongwith the
closed Project. The High Court was not
right in giving the direction to regularize
them or to continue them in other places.
No vested right is created in temporary
employment. Directions cannot be given
to regularise their services in the absence
of any existing vacancies nor can
directions be given to create posts by the
State to nonexistent establishment.

12. In 1999 (2) SCC 317 Rajendra
v. State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court
has held that when the posts temporarily
created for fulfilling the needs of a
particular Project or a Scheme limited in
its duration comes to an end on account of
the need for the Project itself having come
to an end either because the Project was
fulfilled or had to be abandoned wholly or
partially for want of funds, the employer
cannot be compelled by a writ of
mandamus to continue employing such
employees
as
have
been
dislodged
because such a direction would amount to
requisition for creation of posts though
not required by the employer and funding
such post though the employer did not
have the funds available for the purpose.

13. The Tribunal has observed in
para 42 of its judgment that the
employees were sacked after they had put
in long years of service and had become
overage for other employment, and this
has in human civil consequences. In our
opinion, the law is well settled by the
judgments of the Supreme Court referred
to above. When there is a conflict
between law and equity it is the law
which is to prevail, in accordance with the
Latin maxim 'dura lex sed lex,' which
means, 'the law is hard but it is the law.'

14. Merely because in some
decisions the Supreme Court directed
regularization of employees it does not
amount to laying down any law vide AIR
2002 S.C. 3088, Delhi Administration V.
Manohar Lal, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1087
Municipal Committee V. Hazara Singh
etc.

15. The respondents no.3 to 6 were
only purely temporary employees and it is
well settled that temporary employees
have no right to the post. The termination
of services is not punitive and hence it is
valid.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhawan V. R.B.S. College, Agra & others
349

16. In view of the above discussion
the impugned order of the Tribunal dated
27.4.2001 cannot be sustained and it is
hereby quashed. Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 218 of 2003

Shri Janardan Chaturvedi
...Petitioner
Versus
The Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad
University of Agriculture & Technology,
Kanpur/Lucknow and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yogesh Agarwal
Sri S.N. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P. Padia
Sri Vipin Sinha
Sri R.G. Padia

Constitution of India- Article 226- since
there is a disputed question involved in
this case i.e. what is the nature of the
duties and functions of the petitioner- it
would be appropriate to relegate the
petitioner to his alternative remedy
under section 23 of the U.P. Agriculture
Universities Act.

Held -para 5

Since there is a disputed question
involved in this case what is the nature
of the duties and function of the
petitioner it would be appropriate to
delegate the petitioner to his alternative
remedy under Section 23 of the U.P.
Agriculture Universities Act.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed
against
the
impugned
order
dated
27.12.2002 Annexure 1 to the writ
petition.

3. The petitioner is an employee of
Chandra Shekhar Azad University of
Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur. The
petitioner's date of birth is 1.1.43 and as
such he retired on reaching the age of 60
years on 31.12.2002. The petitioner
claimed that being a teacher of the
Institution he is entitled to continue till
the end of the academic sessions i.e. till
30.6.2003. Under Chapter 27 para7 of the
Statutes of the University which has been
quoted in para 9 of the writ petition a
teacher is entitled to continue till the end
of the academic session i.e. 30th June.
The question, therefore, is whether the
petitioner is a teacher as defined in the
Act.

4. Section 2 (k) of the U.P.
Agriculture Universities Act 1998 define
teacher as follows:

"Teacher" means a person appointed
or recognized by the University for the
purpose of imparting instruction or
conducting and guiding research or
extension programmes and includes a
person who may be declared by the
statutes to be a teacher"

5. The petitioner claimed that he is a
teacher in the University as defined in
Section 2 (k). However, in para 6 of the
counter affidavit it is stated that the
petitioner has never been a teacher in the