R.S. Mongia, J. - (1.) BRIEFLY the facts giving rise to the present case are that the respondent -Chaudhary Cba -ran Singh Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar (hereinafter referred to as "the University") advertised on November 28, 1996, the post of Research Associate for monitoring and evaluation project for Mandi areas. Petitioner No. 1 Shri Bhupinder Singh had applied and was selected and appointed on December 11, 1996. Again two posts of Research Associates in the same project were advertised and petitioner No. 2 Gurnaia Singh was also selected and appointed on June 25, 1997. Both the petitioners rendered their services as Research Associates in the Project and were relieved on March 31, 1999, due to the closure of the Project. The same very Project was continued again in October, 1999. The petitioners represented that they may be adjusted in the Project which had been restarted. They also submitted a reminder to the Head of the Department. On the representation of the petitioners for their adjustment in the Project, scientist evaluation by :Shri U.B..Singh, who was looking after the Project, was as under : - "Scientist Evaluation Recommended and forwarded with the remarks that Mr. Bhupinder Singh and Mr. Gurnam Singh had been working as Research Associates in the first phase of Kandi Project which terminated on 31.3.1999. Even after termination of the project they helped in the preparation of final evaluation report of the first phase for which they have promised not to claim any payment from University. During their tenure as Research Associate, their performance was highly satisfactory. Keeping in view their experience of first phase, if agreed, they may be allowed to serve in the second phase also in which the evaluation work has been assigned to our University. Moreover, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case filed by Dalip Kumar and others against University in the year 1999 had ordered that whenever the post becomes available, the petitioners will be preferred. Ultimately, the petitioners Sh. Dalip Singh and Sh. Rulda Singh etc. were reappointed on the post of Compilers -cum - Tabulators in the first phase of the project by our University. A copy of the court orders is being enclosed for your ready reference, please. Sd/ - U.B. Singh 4.11.1999"
(2.) THE respondent -University did not adjust the petitioners in the Project and rather advertised the post on May 4, 2000. This led the petitioners to file the present writ petition. While issuing notice of motion, the Motion Bench on May 16, 2000, restrained the University from making selection pursuant to the advertisement dated May 4, 2000. Reply on behalf of the respondent -University has been filed. Primary stand of the respondents is that the project for which the advertisement has been made is a different project than the one in which the petitioners had earlier been appointed. Reference may be made to para 7 of the written statement : - "7. That the contents of para -7 are incorrect. Hence denied. As a matter of fact a fresh Project entitled "Evaluation and Adaptive Research Programme under Integrated Watershed Development (Hills) Project -II in Haryana State" was sanetioned by State Government as per letter 3289 -Agril -II(5)17715 dated 20.9.1999. In this letter, it has clearly been mentioned that terms -of reference of assigned work will be separately drawn by the Director of Agricultural, Haryana with the respondent -University. Accordingly, as per the settled terms and conditions for the work to be undertaken, a memorandum of Understanding as per copy enclosed, was signed between the Project Director, IWDP, Panchkula and Director of Research of the respondent -University on 4.1.2000. Copies of the above mentioned documents are attached as Annexures R -1 and R -2 respectively."
(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that in fact it is the same Project and Phase II of the Project has started now, which is apparent from the recommendations of Shri U.B. Singh, the Scientist, which has been quoted above. We have seen the original noting file. The following recommendations were put to the Director, Research : - "Director of Research" Three Research Associates were working in the Kandi Project C(g) -DLA -CA -Part -B at Panchkula. The scheme expired on 31.3.1999. Now Phase -II of the Kandi Project has been assigned by the State Government to this University in which two posts of RAs have been provided. This scheme (Phase -11) No. C(g) -Agril.Eco -14 -CA has been included in the University budget vide CAU's letter No. 1143 -45 dated 19.1.2000. The RAs working in Phase -I of the project, Sh. Gurnam Singh, Sh. Bhupinder Singh and Sh. Abhey Singh have requested that they may be taken back as RAs in the Phase -II of the project. The Scientist Incharge has also recommended that keeping in view the experience and satisfactory work done by the RAs in Phase -1 of the project, they may be adjusted on the posts of RAS provided in the Phase -11 of the project. It may be mentioned that Sh. Abhey Singh worked as RA in Phase -I for two months only from 1.9.1999 to 31.10.1999. The HCD (Agril. Economics) has sought advice whether two posts of RAs provided in the Phase -II of the project may be advertised or Sh. Bhupinder Singh and Sh. Gumam Singh who have already worked in Phase -I of the project may be adjusted. It has been mentioned at 'x' overleaf that the volume of work in the 2nd Phase is similar to that of Phase -I. The Scientist Incharge recommends their adjustment keeping in view their experience and satisfactory performance during Phase -I. FPP : Director of Research may kindly consider this case and pass suitable orders so that HCD may proceed further in the matter accordingly. But before returning the case to HCD it may be brought to the notice of the V.C. as one representation from Sh. Bhupinder Singh and Sh. Gurnam Singh was received from the Vice Chancellor's (F/A) office." The Director, Research, mentioned that request/recommendations may be considered please. Initially the office had recommended as under : - "Discussed with A&AO on 16.2.2000. Phase -I of the Kandi Project was operative at Panchkula upto 31.3.1999. Phase -II of the project was sanctioned by the State Government in January, 2000. It is understood that the Phase -II of the same project in State Government started functioning w.e.f. 1.4.1999 whereas due to some administrative/procedural delays, Phase -II could not be sanctioned to the University well in time. As highlighted by the Scientist Incharge, the nature of work in the second phase is similar to that of Phase -I. As in the case of regular contract appointees, they are given appointment upto the sanctioned period of project or till the date of conclusion of the project whichever is earlier. Sanction of the Phase -11 of the same Kandi Project in continuation of Phase -I (leaving aside the gap due to administrative/procedural delays) it can safely be concluded that the Kandi Project is still continuing. Therefore, disengaging the RAs who have worked in the Phase -I of the Kandi Project for about two years may not be in the interest of the project and also may not be legally correct. In view of the above position, the office is of the view that the RAs. Sh. Gurnam Singh and Bhupinder Singh may be allowed to continue as Research Associate in Phase -II but they will be entitled to the wages/consolidated salary from the date of their rejoining duty. The case is submitted to the Director of Research for consideration and orders, pl." The above noting has been reproduced only to show that the present project is in fact continuation of the earlier project. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an Apex Court judgment in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9665 -71/91, 10410/91 and 9017/91 (A.K. Singh and Ors. v. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology and Ors.), rendered on July 26, 1991 copy Annexure P -14 to contend that incumbents who are appointed to carry out a particular research project should be allowed to continue during the entire project unless it is a case of inefficiency or indiscipline. The Supreme Court observed as under : - "Having heard counsel for the parties we are of the view that once some one is inducted into a research project in any of the three categories, there could be no justification to keep him out before the project is completed except in cases of inefficiency or indiscipline. In a given project, the limit of six months' time for appointment would be wholly unwarranted even in the interest of project itself. A person who works efficiently in a project need not be turned out on the basis of the time limit. We have not been able to see any rationale in the Scheme introduced by the Memorandum of April 30, 1990, particularly in regard to the duration of the appointment. We accordingly direct that all the three categories of the people associated with the research programmes should have employment co - terminus with the projects. We would make it clear that the fact that such appointment does not give them any right to claim any title of the position beyond the life of the project. Those who were in service upto May, 1991 and their projects are on, shall be re -inducted into the projects within one month from today and be continued on the same terms and as they were prior to May, 1991.";