# GURBACHAN LAL v. REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KURUKSHETRA AND-ORS

- **Citation:** [2007] 3 S.C.R. 483
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2007
- **Bench:** Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Tarun Chatterjee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gurbachan-lal-v-regional-engineering-college-kurukshetra-and-ors-22537
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

B
Service Law:
Temporary employee-Scheme or project-Completion ofRegularisation-Entitlement to--Amendment of service condition-Right of C
employer-The Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of
India established National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship
Development Board (NSTEDB) to encourage and promote entrepreneurship
amongst the science and technology persons-NSTEDB, with the same
objective, set up Establishment Development Cells (EDC) in various D
educational institutions-The scheme, as framed by NSTEDB, stated that the
DST would provide financial assistance to the educational institutions for a
period of three years and thereafter it would be the responsibility of the
educational institution to continue its functioning and that the EDC should
merge into the mainstream of the institution-Engineering college established
the EDC in it and invited applications for the post of Chief Project E
Coordinator-One candidate applied for the post but he was appointed in
the post of Senior Project Leader temporarily-The appointment letter stated
that the service of the employee was liable to be terminated by either side
without assigning any reasons-The Board of Governors of the engineering
college had approved the creation of the EDC in it-The State Government F
revised the pay scale of the teachers in the engineering college but the
revised pay scale was not granted to the employee-The employee filed a writ
petition and claimed revised pay scale as well as confirmation as Assistant
Professor-During the pendency of the writ petition the engineering college
stopped the salary of the employee-The engineering college, instead of
releasing the salary, asked the employee to approach the funding agency for G
release of funds and thereafter his services were terminated-The employee
filed another writ petition-In the meanwhile, the Board of Governors decided
not to merge the EDC with the regular establishment of the engineering
college-A Single Judge allowed both the writ petitions and held that it was
483
H
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S.C.R.
A the obligation on the part of the engineering college to absorb the faculty
members and other staff of the EDC and also held that the employee must be
r
paid his salary in accordance with the revised pay scale-On appeal, the
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge
and held that the employee could not seek merger of the EDC with the
B
engineering college and fiirther held that the appointment of the employee,
being on a temporary basis, could not confer any right on him-Correctness
of-Held: The employee was not appointed in the post which was advertised,
but was appointed as a Senior Project Leader and, therefore, the Division
Bench was justified in holding that the employee was not appointed in a
"-
sanctioned post-It is always open to the Board of Governors to create a post
..
c and also to abolish any post which would not be required to be continued
in its opinion-The temporary employment of the employee cannot vest any
legal right in him to continue when the scheme itself, on the basis of which
he was appointed and was working, came to an end-Hence, it is valid in
law for the engineering college to terminate the employee from service in a
manner, which did not favour him-High Court judgment upheld
-
D
The D1~partment of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India
established National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Development
Board (NSTEDB) to encourage and promote entrepreneurship amongst the
1't
science and technology persons. NSTEDB, with the same objective, set up
E Establishment Development Cells (EDC) in various educational institutions.
The scheme, as framed by NSTEDB, stated that the DST would provide
financial assistance to the educational institutions for a period of three years
and thereafter it would be the responsibility of the educational institution to
continue its functioning and that the EDC should mer

## Text

_Characters 0–39,770 of 59,364. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39770 for what follows._

.>
j.
-
GURBACHAN LAL
A
v.
REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KURUKSHETRA AND-ORS.
MARCH I, 2007
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]
B
Service Law:
Temporary employee-Scheme or project-Completion ofRegularisation-Entitlement to--Amendment of service condition-Right of C
employer-The Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of
India established National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship
Development Board (NSTEDB) to encourage and promote entrepreneurship
amongst the science and technology persons-NSTEDB, with the same
objective, set up Establishment Development Cells (EDC) in various D
educational institutions-The scheme, as framed by NSTEDB, stated that the
DST would provide financial assistance to the educational institutions for a
period of three years and thereafter it would be the responsibility of the
educational institution to continue its functioning and that the EDC should
merge into the mainstream of the institution-Engineering college established
the EDC in it and invited applications for the post of Chief Project E
Coordinator-One candidate applied for the post but he was appointed in
the post of Senior Project Leader temporarily-The appointment letter stated
that the service of the employee was liable to be terminated by either side
without assigning any reasons-The Board of Governors of the engineering
college had approved the creation of the EDC in it-The State Government F
revised the pay scale of the teachers in the engineering college but the
revised pay scale was not granted to the employee-The employee filed a writ
petition and claimed revised pay scale as well as confirmation as Assistant
Professor-During the pendency of the writ petition the engineering college
stopped the salary of the employee-The engineering college, instead of
releasing the salary, asked the employee to approach the funding agency for G
release of funds and thereafter his services were terminated-The employee
filed another writ petition-In the meanwhile, the Board of Governors decided
not to merge the EDC with the regular establishment of the engineering
college-A Single Judge allowed both the writ petitions and held that it was
483
H
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S.C.R.
A the obligation on the part of the engineering college to absorb the faculty
members and other staff of the EDC and also held that the employee must be
r
paid his salary in accordance with the revised pay scale-On appeal, the
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge
and held that the employee could not seek merger of the EDC with the
B
engineering college and fiirther held that the appointment of the employee,
being on a temporary basis, could not confer any right on him-Correctness
of-Held: The employee was not appointed in the post which was advertised,
but was appointed as a Senior Project Leader and, therefore, the Division
Bench was justified in holding that the employee was not appointed in a
"-
sanctioned post-It is always open to the Board of Governors to create a post
..
c and also to abolish any post which would not be required to be continued
in its opinion-The temporary employment of the employee cannot vest any
legal right in him to continue when the scheme itself, on the basis of which
he was appointed and was working, came to an end-Hence, it is valid in
law for the engineering college to terminate the employee from service in a
manner, which did not favour him-High Court judgment upheld
-
D
The D1~partment of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India
established National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Development
Board (NSTEDB) to encourage and promote entrepreneurship amongst the
1't
science and technology persons. NSTEDB, with the same objective, set up
E Establishment Development Cells (EDC) in various educational institutions.
The scheme, as framed by NSTEDB, stated that the DST would provide
financial assistance to the educational institutions for a period of three years
and thereafter it would be the responsibility of the educational institution to
continue its functioning and that the EDC should merge into the mainstream
of the institution.
F
The respondent-institution established the EDC in it and invited
applications for the post of Chief Project Coordinator. The appellant applied
~
for the post but he was appointed in the post of Senior Project Leader
·-
temporarily. The appointment letter stated that the service of the appellant
G
was liable to be terminated by either side without assigning any reasons. The
Board of Governors of the respondent-institution had approved the creation
of the EDC in it on the basis of the grant-in-aid released by the Government
oflndia, Ministry of Human Resource Development.
~-
The State Government issued a notification revising the pay scales of
H
the teachers working in the respondent-institution. The appellant made a
GURBACHAN LAL''· REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KURUKSHETRA
485
representation that he was eligible for the revised pay scale but was not A
granted. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court and claimed
the revised pay scale and also for confirmation as Assistant Professor. During
the pendency of the writ petition the respondent-institution stopped the salary
of the; appellant. The respondent-institution, instead of releasing the salary,
asked the appellant to approach the funding agency for release of funds and B
thereafter his services were terminated.
The appellant filed another writ petition before the High Court. In the
meanwhile, the Board of Governors decided not to merge the EDC with the
regular establishment of the respondent-institution. A Single Judge allowed
both the writ petitions and held that it was the obligation on the part of the C
respondent-institution to absorb the faculty members and other staff of the
EDC and also held that the appellant must be paid his salary in accordance
with the revised pay scale.
On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment
of the Single Judge and held that the appellant could not seek merger of the D
EDC with the respondent-institution and further held that the appointment of
the.appellant, being on a temporary basis, could not confer any right Of!: him.
Hence the appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1. The Board of Governors of the Institution was within its
jurisdiction to take a decision whether the Establishment Development Cell
(EDC), i.e. the scheme was to be merged with the Institution or not. Such a
decision had to be taken by the Board of Governors on the basis of the
requirement of the Institution by taking into consideration its financial
conditions and other relevant factors. It cannot also be denied that the appellant F
could not claim any vested or enforceable legal right to claim absorption in
the Institution as even a regular post in the Institution can be abolished on
account of non-availability of work or funds. (Para 27) (496-D-F)
1.2. It was not for the appellant to approach the High Court under Article G
226 of the Constitution claiming any declaration that he was entitled to be
absorbed in the Institution in the regular scale of pay even though the
Institution had not appointelj the appellant on any of the regular posts but
such appointment was solely on the basis of the scht!me. The order of
termination issued to the appellant cannot be said to be bad in law and
accordingly the Division Bench of the High Court rightly held that the scheme H
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S.C.R.
A had come to an end with the stoppage of the grant by the Central Government.
That being the position, the appellant was not entitled to claim absorption in
r·
the end with the main stream, i.e. with the Institution nor would he be entitled
to say that he became a permanent employee of it. [Para 27[ [496-F-H; 497-AI
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, [2006[ 4 SCC 1, followed.
B
Managing Director of UP Land Development Corporation v. Amar
Singh, [2003] 5 SCC 388 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nodha Ram, AIR
(1997) SC 1445, relied on.
State of Maharashtra v. Association of Maharashtra Education Services
l
c Class II Officers, (1974] 4 SCC 706, held inapplicable.
2.1. The employees employed for the purpose of a scheme which has
been subsequently closed down do not acquire any vested right or enforceable
legal right to continue with the scheme nor could such employees approach
D
the court for a declaration to continue with the scheme after the project was
over. [Para 30] [497-F-GI
Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development Authority, [20051 1 SCC 639,
relied on.
E
2.2. That apart, the appellant was not appointed in the post which was
advertised, but was appointed as a Senior Project Leader and, therefore, the
Division Bench was justified in holding that the appellant was not appointed
in a sanctioned post. The question of regularization of the appellant in the
main stream of the Institution could not arise at all nor could it be said that
the appellant became a permanent employee of the Institution as the scheme
F
came to an end. Therefore, it may safely be concluded that since the scheme
had come to an end as soon as the financial assistance to the Institution was
withdrawn and as the Board of Governors of the Institution had decided not to
continue with the scheme and not to merge the same with the Institution, it
'I'
cannot be said that merely because there was a clause in the advertisement
G
that the post of the appellant was likely to continue, the appellant had acquired
any right whatsoever to become a permanent employee of the Institution, nor
had he acquired any vested right to continue in his position. In any view of the
matter, as he was appointed purely on a temporary basis and the scheme had
already come to an end, the appellant was not entitled to any relief to the extent
~ ~
that he had become a permanent employee of the Institution itself. [Para 31]
H
(497-H; 498-A-C]
i
GURBACHAN LAL'· REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KURllKSHETRA
487
2.3. The Board of Governors of the Institution had considered all the A
relevant factors and thereafter had taken a resolution not to merge the scheme
with the Institution or continue with it. It is always open to the Board of
Governors to create a post and also to abolish any post which would not be
required to be continued in its opinion. [Para 33) [498-G)
3.1. The guidelines for vesting of the EDC with the Institution were not B
mandatory in nature and the scheme came to an end. The question of
absorption of the appellant in the end after the closure of the scheme cannot,
therefore, arise at all. [Para 36) (499-E)
3.2. Moreover, the nature of employment was explicitly laid down in the C
appointment letter to which the appellant had communicated his acceptance,
as temporary. Therefore, it is valid in law for the institution to terminate the
appellant from service in a manner, which did not favour him. [Para 37)
[499-F,G)
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, [2006) 4 SCC 1, followed. D
4. The sovereign government, after considering the economic situation
in the country and work to be got done, cannot be precluded from making
temporary appointments or engaging temporary workers or daily wagers
which clearly indicates that the authority has the power to appoint temporary
employees but the fact remains that such appointment shall remain temporary E
in nature which can be terminated at any point of time. [Para 46) (499-G-H)
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, followed.
5.1. In the present case, the appellant continued to work for ten years
or more but such continuous temporary employment of the appellant cannot F
vest any legal right in him to continue when the scheme itself, on the basis of
which he was appointed and was working, came to an end. It is also incorrect
to say that the court would direct continuity of the scheme for the purpose of
keeping the appellant in service and in any view of the matter he could not be
treated as a permanent employee of the Institution as he was appointed under
a scheme and not in the mainstream of the institution. [Para 47) [502-A-B) G
Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department v. Union
of India, AIR (1987) SC 2342 and Jacob M Puthuparambil v. Kera/a Water
Authority, [1991) 1 SCC 28, relied on.
State of Haryana v. Piyara Singh, [1992) 5 JT 179, referred to.
H
488
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 3 S.C.R.
A
5.2. Since the service of the appellant was temporary in nature and he
was appointed under a scheme which had come to an end and he had joined
the service in complete recognition and acceptance of the conditions and
furt:1er had already accepted fresh assignment on the basis of a new scheme,
it cannot be said that the termination of his service was invalid in law.
Therefore, the stand of the appellant that it is not open to the Board of
B Governors of the Institution to say that it was unable to continue with the
EDC and thereby terminating the services of the appellant, does not hold good.
(Para 541 (505-E-F(
c
D
CIVIL APPELLATE ruRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1120 of2007.
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 26.5.2005 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 138 of 2004 in CWP No.
4579/2002 and L.P.A. No. 139/2004 in CWP No. 1537112000.
P.P. Rao, S. Wasim A. Qadri and Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellant.
Mahabir Singh, V. Sudeer, MBRS. Raju, S. Balaji, Madhusmita Bohra and
S. Srinivasan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
T ARUN CHATTERJEE, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The present dispute arises out of termination of services of Gurbachan
Lal (the appellant herein) by the Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra
(the respondent herein).
F
3. Jn 1986, the Department of Science and Technology, Government of
India established National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship
Development Board (hereinafter called "NSTEDB") to encourage and promote
entrepreneurship amongst the science and technology persons. NSTEDB,
with the same objective, set up Establishment Development Cells (in short
G EDC) in various educational institutions. The Scheme as framed by NSTEDB
stated that Department of Science and Technology (in short DST) would
provide financial assistance for a period of three years or till the end of the
7th Five Year Plan, whichever would be earlier after which the educational
institution would be under the responsibility to continue its functioning and
that the EDC should merge into the mainstream of the Institution for continuous
H running along with its faculty and staff. The Institution established the EDC
GURBACHAN LAL'· REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KURUKSHETRA [T ARUN CHATTERJEE, I.] 489
in it and invited applications for the post of Chief Project Coordinator for A
~
~
which the minimum qualifications included that the candidate must be at least
a graduate in engineering/ technology or a post graduate in any branch of
Science, Mathematics, Economics or Business Administration with ten years'
of experience in industries or entrepreneurship development of which minimum
five years in a position of responsibility.
B
4. In pursuance of this scheme, on 12th April 1989, the Institution
advertised for the said post in the EDC for which the appellant applied.
However, he was appointed in the post of Senior Project Leader by an
•
).
appointment .letter dated 9th August 1989 which categorically stated as follows:
"I. Appointment:
Temporary[ emphasis added]
c
2. Scale of Pay:
Rs. 1200-50-1300-60-1900
(unrevised)
3. Initial Pay:
You are allowed a basic
D
pay of Rs.1600 in the
unrevised scale of pay of
Rs.1200-1900. Total
emoluments shall be
Rs. 4630 excluding HRA.
This is equivalent to the stage of
E
Rs. 3700 in the revised
scale Rs. 3700-125-4950150-5700. The total
emoluments are Rs. 4715
excluding HRA.
F
The approval of the revised
pay scale is awaited from
'
..,
the State Government. This
is likely to be received
shortly. You will be placed
at the basic pay of Rs. 3700
G
in the revised pay scale of
Rs. 3700-5700 from the
-1
date of your joining. The
arrears will be put to you
on implementation of the
H
revised pay scale.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S.C.R.
4. Allowances:
5. Date of Next Increment:
6 ....
7 .....
8 ....
9. Leave:
10. Conduct & Discipline:
11. Termination of service:
You will receive any
allowances admissible
under the Rules of the College from
time to time.
One year after from the
date of your joining the
post.
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
You will be governed by the
!eave rules of the college
from time to time.
You will be governed by the
conduct and disciplinary
rules of the college from
time to time.
Your service is liable to be
terminated by either side
without assigning any
reason of one month 's
notice in writing or on
payment of on month 's pay
and allowance in lieu
thereof However, you will
not be allowed to leave the
service during semester
studies."
[emphasis added]
5. We have examined the terms and conditions of the appointment letter
of the appellant, as quoted herein above. Condition no. I clearly indicates that
~ -
the appointment of the appellant was purely temporary which can be terminated
H without assigning any reason by giving one month's notice in writing or on
GL'RBACHAN LAL " REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE. KURUKSHETRA [T ARUN CH 'TTERJEE. J.] 49 J
payment of one month's salary and allowances in lieu thereof. It was stipulated A
..
'i
in the letter of appointment that the appellant would be entitled to revised pay
scale which was awaited from the State Government for the employees of the
Institution. However, the appointment Jetter indicated that he would also
receive allowances admissible under the rules of the Institution from time to
time. Clause 5 of the appointment letter also indicated that the date of next B
increment would be one year after the date of joining the post. From a close
scrutiny of the letter of appointment, it is evident that the appointment of the
appellant in the above post was temporary which could be terminated by
j,
)
either of the parties without assigning any reason by giving one month's
notice or payment of one month's pay and allowances in lieu thereof.
c
6. However, condition no. 10 of the appointment Jetter says that
allowances payable to the employee of the Institution under its rules, as
applicable from time to time shall also be payable to the appellant.
7. The Board of Governors of the Institution had approved the creation
of the EDC in it on the basis of grant-in-aid released by the Government of D
India, Ministry of Human Resource Development. It was noted in the Scheme
that the fund for EDC was sanctioned up to the end of the 7th Five Year Plan
but was likely to continue in the 8th Plan also as a central scheme. It was
further resolved that the staff salary and miscellaneous operational expenses
shall be met from the grants in aid received under the Scheme of the EDC but
E
ultimately the Institution will have to generate its own resources to continue
with it.
8. Before we proceed further, we may state that the appellant in the writ
petition alleged mala fide on the part of the Principal of the Institution. In
order to show that the Principal of the Institution had acted in a mala fide F
manner against him, the appellant alleged the following facts:-
"'
9. The appellant applied for Ph.D. registration under the Principal of the
Institution (herein Respondent No. 5) as the main guide but withdrew because
work was not satisfactory and applied for Ph.D. under the guidance of the
next senior most professor. The appellant claimed that this upset the Principal G
of the Institution and he became prejudiced against him which was evident
in many instances such as the one on 16th August 1999 when the Principal
-4
of the Institution allotted official accommodation in the Institution campus to
a junior staff, ignoring the claim of the appellant who was a member of the
senior staff. However, we need not proceed further on the question of mala
H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S.C.R.
A tides on the part of the Principal of the Institution as we find that such ground
was not agitated by the appellant either before the Learned Single Judge or
the Division Bench of the High Court.
I 0. The appellant also stated that on 5th N,wember 1999, a notification
was issued by Haryana Government revising the pay scales of teachers
B working in the Institution. According to the appellant, he was eligible for the
revised pay scale but was denied the benefits of it. He made representations
in this regard but was not heard.
I I. A writ petition being W.P. No. No. 15371 of2000 was filed by the
C appellant on 9th November 2000 before the High Court of the State of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh praying for issuing an appropriate writ directing
the respondents to pay the revised pay scale with pay fixation and to confirm
the appellant as Assistant professor and grant any other relief as may be
appropriate.
D
12. The Institution stopped the salary of the appellant from May 2001
to which he made representations and prayed for release of his pay. The
Principal of the Institution released the salary to the appellant but asked him
to arrange for it in future from the concerned authority. It was asserted that
owing to the mental harassment, the appellant suffered heart attack and had
to undergo an open heart bye-pass surgery. He claimed reimbursement of Rs.
E 74,492 towards medical claim but it was stopped by the Principal of the
Institution. Representations for release of his salary and reimbursement of
medical bill were made by the appellant.
13. On 31st November 200 I, the appellant received 6 months' salary
from June, 2001 to November 200 I. However, medical reimbursement was not
F released. The salary of the appellant was stopped from January 2002 for which
he filed a representation for its release. The Institution instead of releasing
the salary, asked the appellant to approach the funding agency for release of
funds.
G
14. On 28th February 2002, the appe:tant received notice for termination
of service and no salary was paid to him for the notice period. Another writ
petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court being WP no. 4579
of 2002 challenging his termination order.
15. On 2nd April, 2004, both the Writ Petitions filed by the appellant
H were allowed by the Learned Single Judge of the High Court by a common
r
GURBACHAN LAL"· REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE. KURUKSHETRA [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.] 493
...,
judgment. The Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that from the perusal A
~
of the documents brought on record, it was evident that there was an obligation
on the part of the Institution to absorb the faculty members and other staff
of the EDC and that it could not shun its responsibilities after enjoying
financial benefits for twelve years and thus was estopped from going back
from its obligations. The Learned Single Judge further held that it was the B
obligation of the Institution to merge the members of EDC in its mainstream.
The Learned Single Judge also held that the appellant must be paid his salary
in accordance with the revised pay scale.
> J
16. Aggrieved by the orders in the aforesaid writ petitions, the Institution
filed a Letter Patent Appeal being LPA No. 138/2004. In this LPA, it was c
pointed out by the Principal of the Institution that it was the decision of the
Board of Governors not to merge EDC with the regular establishment of the
Institution. Since the appellant was never appointed in the regular
establishment, there was no question of allotment of a quarter. It was also
pointed out that since the salaries of the staff of the EDC were being paid
out of the financial assistance received from the DST, which was eventually D
withdrawn, the appellant could not be an employee of the Institution.
-,.
17. It was observed by the High Court that in the present case, the post
advertised was that of a Chief Project Coordinator whereas the appellant was
appointed as Senior Project Leader on temporary basis in the EDC. The High E
Court in the LPA had further observed that the appointment of the appellant
could not confer any right on him as Assistant Professor, which is a regular
post and could be filled only after giving an opportunity to all eligible
candidates to apply for the post and after following the relevant rules of the
Institution.
18. In the LPA it was also observed that the appellant could not seek F
...
merger of the EDC with the Institution but considering the fact that he had
worked for more than ten years with the Institution, it directed that the
appellant be granted relaxation in age for the post of Assistant Professor as
and when the post is advertised so that he is able to compete with other
eligible candidates to seek appointment on regular basis.
G
-~
I 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the special leave
petitions in respect of which leave has been granted.
20. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties.
Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S. C.R.
A mainly two-fold submissions. First, Mr. Rao contended that in view of the
guidelines framed by the Government oflndia, as noted herein earlier, the EDC
r
.,..
was to be merged with the main stream of the Institution after the financial
assistance was withdrawn by the Central Government. Accordingly, Mr. Rao
submitted that it could not be said that the scheme came to an end as soon
B
as the financial assistance by the Central Government was withdrawn. Mr.
Rao further submitted that it would be evident from the guidelines that it was
the duty of the Institution to continue with the scheme after the financial
assistance was withdrawn and accordingly the appellant, with the merger of
the EDC with the main stream of the Institution, became an employee of the
A.
~
Institution itself. Mr. Rao further submitted that in view of the fact that an
c undertaking was also filed at the time the scheme was approved by the
Central Government, that after the financial assistance was withdrawn by it,
the Institution ought to have taken over the liability and continued to run the
scheme, it was not open to the Institution to say that it was not in a position
to continue with the scheme for financial stringency. Accordingly, Mr. Rao
D
contended that the services of the appellant could not be terminated without
following the procedure for termination or dismissal from service like that of
the regular employees of the Institution. In support of this contention, Mr.
Rao relied on a decision of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
and Ors. v. Association of Maharashtra Education Services Class fl Officers
1
and Ors., [1974] 4 SCC 706. Mr. Rao had drawn our attention to paragraph
E 7 of the said decision and contended that it was not open to the Board of
Governors of the institution to depart from the rudiments of the scheme and
to device a new mechanism entailing the imposition of fresh conditions as a
pre-requisite to eligibility for the higher pay scale.
21. Secondly, it was contended by Mr. Rao that assuming that the EDC
F could not be merged with the Institution even then the appellant could not
be said to be a temporary employee of the Institution as he acted as Assistant
Professor for more than ten years in the same and, therefore, he became a
""
permanent employee of the Institution. Accordingly, it was argued that the
procedure for termination of services relating to the employees of the Institution
G should be followed and as the Board of Governors of the Institution not
having followed such procedure of termination in the case of the appellant,
the order of termination cannot be sustained.
22. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondents
~ --
refuted the aforesaid two submissions put forth by Mr. Rao. According to Mr.
H Singh, the EDC came to an end on the stoppage of grant by the Central
)
GURBACHAN LAL"· REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KURUKSHETRA [TARUN CHAlTERJEE, J] 495
Government to the Institution. Therefore, the order of termination of service A
of the appellant who was appointed purely on temporary basis under a
Scheme which came to an end on stoppage of grant by the Central Government
it could not be said to be bad, illegal and invalid in law and that being the
position, it was not open for the appellant to contend that he became a
permanent employee of the Institution as he served it for more than ten years. B
23. Mr. Singh, in support of his contention, relying on a Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006] 4 SCC
I contended that the appointment of the appellant being temporary in nature,
as would be evident from Qlauses I and 11 of the appointment letter, as noted
herein earlier would c_lefrly show that the service of the appellant could be C
terminated by either of the parties by giving one month's notice with pay and
allowances and i~iew of the fact that the appellant was appointed on the
basis of a sch..i:rae·namely the EDC, which had come to an end, the Division
Bench of the High Court was fully justified in observing that no occasion
could arise for the Learned Single Judge to hold that the appellant had
automatically become permanent in the Institution. He further contended that D
on a plain reading of the guidelines relating to the EDC it could not be said
that the Board of Governors of the Institution had no right to direct that in
;ii.
view of the financial difficulties it would not continue with the EDC.
24. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties in depth and in detail. Let us first deal with the submission of E
Mr. Rao that the Scheme could not come to an end in view of the conditions
to the proposal for establishment of the EDC and on stoppage of funds from
the Central Government to run the EDC. We are unable to accept this
submission of Mr. Rao.
25. It is true that Clause 4 of the proposal of the establishment of EDC F
says that it was the responsibility of the Institution to absorb the EDC
established along with its faculty and staff, in usual academic stream of the
Institution, after expiry of the period of assistance from DST was provided.
However, if we read this clause more minutely along with other clauses of the
proposal for establishment of EDC, it would be difficult for us to hold that G
clause 4 of the said proposal can at all be said to be mandatory in nature.
26. Keeping in mind that the guidelines relating to the proposal of
establishment of the EDC was not mandatory in nature, we need to proceed
to consider the factual aspects relating to this question. It is true that initially
H
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S.C.R.
A a resolution was taken to continue with the Scheme, but on reconsideration
of the same, finally a resolution was taken on 19th November 200 I to the
effect that merger with the Institution was not possible in view of financial
stringency. However, the Board of Governors of the Institution in that resolution
advised that efforts may be made to introduce a Scheme or project such as
B Industrial Institute Partnership Cell sponsored for the Institution by the All
India Council of Technical Education.
27. However, as argued by Mr. Rao, it was the responsibility of the
Institution to take over the EDC and run and merge the same with it. It is an
admitted position that the EDC was constituted by the Central Government
C for which necessary funds were allocated year after year till 31st March 2002.
It is also an admitted position that after 31st March 2002 it was made known
to the Institution that financial assistance would not be given and it would
be for the Institution to merge the EDC with it. The initial recommendation
of the advisory committee of the Institution which was formed to find the
feasibility of the scheme to continue was considered by the Board of Governors
D of the Institution and thereafter the Board of Governors decided not to merge
the EDC with it. It is in pursuance of this resolution of the Board of Governors
that the scheme of EDC could not continue and had come to an end. It can
also be said in this connection that the Board of Governors of the Institution
were within their jurisdiction to take a decision whether the EDC, i.e. the
E scheme was to be merged with the Institution or not. Such a decision had to
be taken by the Board of Governors on the basis of the requirement of the
Institution by taking into consideration its financial conditions and other
relevant factors. It cannot also be denied that the appellant could not claim
any vested or enforceable legal right to claim absorption in the Institution as
everi a regular post in the Institution can be abolished on account of nonF availability of work or funds. As noted herein earlier, it was upon the Board
of Governors to decide whether to merge the EDC with the Institution or not.
It was not for the appellant to approach the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution claiming any declaration that he was entitled to be absorbed
in the Institution in the regular scale of pay even though the Institution had
G not appointed the appellant on any of the regular posts but such appointment
was solely on basis of the scheme. For the reasons aforesaid the order of
termination issued to the appellant cannot be said to be bad in law and
accordingly we are in agreement with the Division Bench of the High Court
which held that the scheme had come to an end with the stoppage of the
grant by the Central Government. That being the position the appellant was
H not entitled to claim absorption in the end with the main stream, i.e. with the
.,
)
GURBACHAN LAL'· REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KURUKSHETRA [TARUN CHATTERJEE. J.] 497
Institution nor he would be entitled to say that he became a permanent A
employee of it.
28. Reliance can be placed in the case of Managing Director of UP
Land Development Corporation v. Amar Singh, [2003] 5 SCC 388 in which
this court clearly observed as follows:
"In clear and certain terms it is stated that when the project comes to
a close, the employees who are working in a project will not get any
vested right. In other words, once a project comes to an end, services
of the employees also come to an end. The other decisions cited by
the Learned Counsel more or less are to the same effect."
29. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nodha Ram, AIR (1997) SC 1445,
this court while dealing with the case of a temporary employee appointed on
the basis of a project which had been closed down observed as under :
B
c
"ft is seen that when the project is completed and closed due to
non-availability of funds, the employees have to go along with its D
closure. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to
regularize them or to continue them in other places. No vested right
is creoted in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to
regularize their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor
can directions be given to the State to create posts in a non-existent E
establishment. The Court would adopt pragmatic approach in giving
directions. The directions would amount to creating of posts and
continuing them despite non-availability of the work. We are of the
considered view that the directions issued by the High Court are
absolutely illegal warranting our interference. The order of the High
Court is, therefore, set aside. " (Emphasis supplied)
F
~
30. Similarly in the case of Mahendra L. Jain v. Indore Development
Authority & Ors., [2005] I 639 it has also been held that the employees
employed for the purpose of a Scheme which has been subsequently closed
down do not acquire any vested right or enforceable legal right to continue
with the scheme nor could such employees approach the court for a declaration G
to continue with the scheme after the project was over.
31. That apart, the appellant was not appointed in the post which was
advertised, but was appointed as a Senior Project Leader, therefore, the
Division Bench was justified in holding that the appellant was not appointed H
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S.C.R.
A in a sanctioned post. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the
question of regularization of the appellant in the main stream of the Institution
could not arise at all nor it could be said that the appellant became a
permanent employee of the Institution as the scheme came to an end. Therefore,
it may safely be concluded that since the scheme had come to an end as soon
B
as the financial assistance to the Institution was withdrawn and as the Board
of Governors of the Institution had decided not to continue with the scheme
and not to merge the same with the Institution, it cannot be said that merely
because there was a clause in the advertisement that the post of the appellant
was likely to continue, the appellant had acquired any right whatsoever to
become a permanent employee of the Institution, nor had he acquired any
C vested right to continue in his position. In any view of the matter, as he was
appointed purely on temporary basis and the scheme had already come to an
end, the appellant was not entitled to any relief to the extent that he had
become a permanent employee of the Institution itself.
32. One more fact needs our attention which is borne out from the
D record. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition before the
High Court, a new scheme, namely, Industry Institute Partnership Cell came
into existence and under the said Scheme the appellant was offered a fresh
assignment which he had already accepted and he is presently associated
with the same. Such being the state of affairs now, it would not be open to
E the appellant to allege that the scheme under which he was appointed initially
continued to run even after his accepting the offer under a new Scheme with
which he is now associated.
33. Before parting with this part of the submissions of Mr. Rao, we may
also take note of the fact that in the appointment letter of the appellant, it
F would not be evident that the services of the appellant shall be absorbed in
the Institution. At the risk of repetition, we also observed, as noted herein
earlier, that the Board of Governors had inherent right to consider the
justifiability of continuation of the Scheme or any post or work keeping in
mind the requirement of the Institution. In this connection we add that the
Board of Governors of the Institution had considered all the relevant factors
G and thereafter had taken a resolution not to merge the Scheme with the
Institution or continue with it. It is always open to the Board of Governors
to create a post and also to abolish any post which would not be required
to be continued in , ,, · · opinion.
H
34. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not agree with Mr. Rao's arguments
).
...
GURBACHAN LAL'· REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE. KURUKSHETRA [T ARUN CHATTERJEE. J.) 499
on the first submission .
A
35. Coming back to the discussions of this Court in the case of State
of Maharashtra v. Association of Maharashtra Education Services Class II
Officers, (supra) and considering minutely para 7 of the same on which strong
reliance was placed by Mr. Rao, we are of the view that this decision would
not be helpful to the appellant. In that decision, this Court was dealing with B
the true nature of the scheme envisaged in the Report of the University
GraPts Commission for the year 1966-67 relating to the pay scales of lecturers
and professors in the affiliated colleges accepted by the Government of
Maharashtra.