JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Petitioner seeks declaration that the post of Research Associates created and sanctioned by the University Grant Commission under the Scheme, provided by the Commission, is to uplift the department of Anthropology of the Ranchi University’s Centre of Advanced Studies with a clear condition that the entire financial Liability shall be borne by the State Government. Petitioner also seeks declaration that letter issued by the Joint Secretary dated 20.9.1988 is arbitrary and ultra vires under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution, Consequently, petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 13.4.1994 whereby his services was terminated by respondent-Ranchi University.
2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
3. The University Grant Commission (in short UGC) under the scheme of “Special Assistance” to the Centre for advanced studies sanctioned certain posts of Research Associates. The posts were advertised and petitioner who applied for the said post was selected and letter of appointment dated 26.8.1986 was issued appointing him as Research Associates. In 1989 the pay of the petitioner was revised and was granted lecturers’ pay scale. It is contended that the State Government by letter dated 26.9.1988 accepted the scheme and agreed to take the liability. However, all of a sudden the University issued the impugned letter terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the State Government has refused to take over the liabilities of Centre for advanced studies.
4. I have heard Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. As noticed above, petitioner in fact aggrieved by the office order dated 13.4.1994″ issued by respondent-Ranchi University terminating the services of the petitioner along with others who were appointed on the UGC sponsored scheme of Centre for advanced studies. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that when the State Government agreed to accept the liability after five years then the government was bound to take over the liability and to continue the scheme.
6. From perusal of the copy of the advertisement (Annexure-9) it appears that the post was advertised with the clear stipulation that the period of service would be only for three years. It has not been disputed that the UGC took the liability only for five years and thereafter the scheme had to continue only when the State Government agrees to continue the scheme. The appointment letter issued to the petitioner is annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. In the appointment letter also it was mentioned that the appointment is purely on temporary basis and for a period of” three years with a possible extension of two years. It was also mentioned that these appointments were made under the UGC Scheme of Centre for advanced studies. Immediately after three years UGC sent several letters one of which is dated 28.10.1991 (Annexure-17) which clearly mentioned that further grant will be released only after assurance given by the Slate Government. The State Government by letter dated 26.9.1988 refused to take over the programme after five years then the UGC after continuing the scheme for some period had no option taut to refuse release of any further grant. Consequently, the petitioner along with others who were appointed under the aforesaid scheme were removed.
7. In similar facts of the ease relating to Patna University was considered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9564/ 95, Patna University and Anr. v. Dr. (Mrs.) Urvija Shankar and Ors., the Supreme Court passed the following order :
“Leave granted.
Heard counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the scheme was given sanction for a limited period by the University Grants Commission and thereafter by the State Government. But after the expiry or period of sanction, the scheme automatically come to an end there was no occasion for respondents to continue in the post of Research Associate of Field Investigator under the centre for Development Studies, Department of Geography, Patna University. In the aforesaid facts, the direction of the High Court to make payment of salary to the respondent even beyond the period when there was no sanction was not warranted. We therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. The respondents 1 to 5 having served University as Research Associate for a considerable time, their cases may be sympathetically considered when any occasion for fresh appointment may arise in the University.”
8. It appears that the instant case is fully covered by the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Patna
University. In my opinion therefore, the
impugned order needs no interference and
no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
This writ application is accordingly dis
missed.