JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order of dismissal of its review petition by the learned Single Judge which was filed pursuant to the liberty granted by the Division Bench of this court. Briefly stating the facts of this case are that a writ petition was filed initially by the respondent no.1 herein. The said writ petition bearing CWP no.5090/2000 was disposed of by a consent order passed by the learned Single Judge. It will be important to note some of the salient feature of the settlement arrived at before the Court|
“After some hearing a suggestion was made to work out to an amicable settlement to end the controversy in question. With the fair stand of both the counsel it has been possible to arrive at such a settlement which is recorded in the following terms.
The counsel for the respondent states the petitioners who were initially appointed as Research Scientist under the scheme of UCG will be continued on the same terms and conditions as the department and centres in the Universities. Thus there will be no issue of any review after every five years as stated in para ‘1’ of the scheme since these petitioners have been working with the UGC over a long period of time. It is also agreed that this will not in any way preclude the respondents from taking disciplinary action, if a situation so arises, in terms of the rules and regulations relating to department and centres in Universities. It is further agreed that if a particular candidate does not fulfilll the requirement of carrying on research in terms of this scheme, the same can be ground for taking disciplinary action in terms of the rules and regulations of the department and centres of the Universities as applicable to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for respondents also fairly states that even in the case of some petitioners whose services were dispensed with during the pendency of this petition, the petitioners shall be restored with all consequential benefits. In case the respondents want to take any disciplinary action for not carrying on research by such petitioners, the same shall be done only in terms of the aforesaid procedure…………………………….”
2. Said order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.01.2002. The appellant filed an appeal by way of LPA no.294/2002 wherein the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal, however, liberty was granted to the appellant to move the learned Single Judge for review. Learned Single Judge dismissed the review petition and that is how the present appeal has again been filed by the appellant.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration that the settlement could not have been arrived at on the consent having been given by the lawyer representing the present appellant before the learned Single Judge. In support of his contentions he has cited the case of Tripura Goods Transport Association and another Vs. Commissioner of Taxes & ors . On the basis of the aforesaid authority, it was contended before us that the consent which was granted by the counsel to a scheme of the appellant, which the appellant has formulated under Section 12(J) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, was contrary to the scheme itself. We find no reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the review petition of the appellant that the ratio of Tripura Goods Transport Association and another’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case in hand, it was a scheme framed by UGC for research scientists and that scheme was not statutory in nature. Moreover, in the settlement same modification/concession was done to the condition of review of scientist every five years keeping in view that research scientist was employed with the appellant for many years and that kind of ad hocism ought not to have been permitted. Learned Single Judge specifically in his order had mentioned that the appellant was free to take action against the present respondent no.1, who were employed with departments and centres in Universities, in accordance with rules and regulations of the departments and centres.
4. We do not want to interfere with the reasoned finding given in the impugned order. There is no merit in the appeal and same is dismissed with no order as to costs.