2009 (12) TMI 920 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Scheme for Absorption of Researchers in CSIR Labs./Instts. 1997 should be implemented for absorption/regularization of Researchers who have put in 15 years or more of research in CSIR Labs/Instts?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Absorption of researchers under the CSIR scheme.
2. Validity of the 15-year service requirement.
3. Reasonableness of the cut-off date.
4. Discretionary power of relaxation by the Director General, CSIR.
5. Application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

Comprehensive Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Absorption of Researchers Under the CSIR Scheme:
The appeals were against a judgment by the High Court, which set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order and directed the appellants to consider the absorption of respondents under the CSIR scheme by relaxing the length of experience requirement. The High Court also directed that breaks in service should be considered similarly to other researchers who had been absorbed.

2. Validity of the 15-Year Service Requirement:
The scheme required researchers to have 15 years of continuous research experience for absorption. The High Court found this condition arbitrary, given that the ordinary tenure of researchers (JRF/SRF/RA/SRA) was a maximum of 13 years. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the 15-year requirement was reasonable and had a basis, as the Tribunal itself had earlier directed the formulation of a scheme for researchers with 15 years of service.

3. Reasonableness of the Cut-off Date:
The cut-off date for eligibility under the scheme was fixed at 2.5.1997, coinciding with the date of dismissal of a special leave petition. The High Court deemed this unreasonable, suggesting it should have been the date of the scheme's issuance. The Supreme Court held that fixing a cut-off date is within the employer's discretion and is not arbitrary if it has a rational nexus with the scheme's purpose. The choice of 2.5.1997 was justified and not arbitrary.

4. Discretionary Power of Relaxation by the Director General, CSIR:
Clause 9 of the scheme granted the Director General, CSIR, the power to relax conditions except for educational qualifications. The High Court criticized the Director General's refusal to consider relaxation for candidates with less than 15 years of service as arbitrary. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the discretion to grant relaxation must be exercised judiciously and within the scheme's framework. The Director General's policy decision not to relax the 15-year requirement was not arbitrary.

5. Application of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation:
The respondents argued that they had a legitimate expectation of absorption based on earlier Tribunal and High Court directions. The Supreme Court clarified that legitimate expectation must be based on clear and consistent past practice or an express promise. The doctrine did not apply here as the scheme was framed in compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and the respondents did not have a legal right to absorption.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its judgment by misinterpreting the scheme's provisions and the discretionary powers of the Director General, CSIR. The 15-year service requirement and the cut-off date were upheld as reasonable and non-arbitrary. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, with no order as to costs.