JUDGMENT
M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27.4.2001 copy of which is Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as I.C.A.R.) is a society registered under Societies Registration Act. The Minister for Agriculture is ex-officio President of the Society and it is wholly funded by the Government of India. As stated in para 3 of the writ petition, the society was set up for undertaking scientific research in Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and other allied subjects. The research work is done by various institutions situated all over the country. The number of scientists and helping staff and their qualifications are fixed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research does not make selection or appointment of such employees nor are they employees of Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The grantee college/ institution invites applications and appoints staff required for the project. The pay scale is determined by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research but they work under the supervision and control of the grantee institution and are governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Institution in all matters, such as leave, holidays, etc. The Indian Council of Agricultural-Research has no control or supervision over their work. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research only provides funds for the project and nothing more and it has not to bear any expenditure
on pension, etc. All projects approved for the grantee institutions are of temporary nature and are sanctioned for specified periods, normally for a period of five years, and at the end of the project, the work done is reviewed. The staff recruited is appointed on temporary basis and no guarantee is given that on completion of the project, they will be absorbed. The project employees have no legal right to remain in service after the project comes to an end. In para 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that a project titled as “Use of Saline water in Agriculture” was approved for Raja Balwant Singh College, Agra, respondent No. 1 in the year 1972. This project was extended by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research in the year 1975 named as “Management of Salt Effected Soil and Use of Saline Water for Agriculture”. The respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were selected by the said college after due advertisement and were appointed on various dates as mentioned in para 10 of the writ petition. True copies of the appointment orders are Annexures-1 to 4 to the writ petition.
4. The management of the college terminated the services of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 on restructuring of the project by letters dated 28.8.1993, Annexures-5 to 8. The respondent Nos. 3 to 6 who were working on the project started claiming regularisation of their services in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed O.A. No. 281 of 1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal to which the Indian Council of Agricultural Research filed objection stating that they being project employees have no right of regularisation and their claim was liable to be rejected. A true copy of the submission filed on behalf of Indian Council of Agricultural Research before the Tribunal is Annexure-9 to the writ petition. However, by means of the judgment dated 27.4.2001 the Tribunal has held that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are liable to be absorbed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. True copy of the impugned judgment is Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
5. The petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were not employees of the petitioner and have no right to claim absorption. The posts on which they were working do not exist in the project any more. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has no justification to direct the creation of posts or giving employment to the respondent Nos. 3 to 6. The employees of each project are selected by the sponsoring institute according to the nature of research to be done and the employees of one project cannot be employed for any other project of Research.
6. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a counter-affidavit and we have perused the same. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner launched a coordinated scheme for research on use of Saline Water in Agriculture during the Fourth Five Year Plan period at several centres and the respondent No. 1 college was selected for the aforesaid scheme as one of the centres. The petitioner financed the scheme as 100 per cent sponsored scheme during the Fourth Five Year Plan from the grants to be given to the college by the Government of India. The members of the staff employed on the aforesaid Scheme were governed by the aforesaid terms and conditions and the guidelines issued by the petitioner from time to time. Initially the aforesaid Scheme for research was for the Fourth Five Year Plan period vide letter dated 14.4.1972 but it was renewed for the 5th Five Year Plan period vide letter dated 22.4.1975, for the 6th Five Year Plan period vide letter dated 20.3.1980, for the 7th Five Year Plan period vide letter dated 3.10.1986 and for the 8th Five Year Plan period vide letter dated 31.5.1993, true copies of which are annexed as Annexure-C,A. 1 and C.A. 2 to the writ petition. In para 8 Of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were appointed on temporary basis under the aforesaid scheme in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme on contractual basis for the period of the scheme. When the aforesaid scheme during the 7th Five Year Plan came to an end, the 8th Five Year Plan
changed the staffing pattern and also reduced the strength of the staff vide letter dated 31.5.1993. The college had no option but to terminate the services of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6. In para 11 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the college had requested the petitioner through letter dated 10.7.1993 to permit adjustment of respondent Nos. 3 to 6, but when the petitioner did not respond, the college had no option but to terminate the services of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6, as the appointments of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were on temporary basis. Photostat copy of the letter dated 10.7.1993 is Annexure-C.A. 3 to the counter-affidavit. In para 13 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the grantee institutions have a very limited role in the appointment of the staff of the scheme of the petitioner. In para 15, it is stated that the college is not responsible for adjusting the staff of the scheme/project after completion of the project/scheme or after restructuring of the scheme.
7. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and we have perused the same. In para 13, it is stated that the Research Project at R.B.S. College, Agra, continued for the 8th Five Year Plan (1992-97) with a further stipulation that the Project Coordinator of All India Coordinated Research Project Saline Water shall locate the new centres and operationalise the same at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar during the 8th Five Year Plan-In paragraphs 15 and 16 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were initially appointed after due selection. In para-graph 28 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that Indian Council of Agricultural Research vide sanction letter dated 5.11.1999 has conveyed the sanction of the Government of India for implementing the ongoing All India Coordinate Research Project on Salt affected soils and use of Saline Water in Agriculture during the 9th Five Year Plan period as before at all existing Research Centers including the respondent college. As such the answering respondents are entitled for their adjustment in the said Project or
another ongoing All India Coordinated Research Project. Photocopy of the relevant extract of the sanction order is Annexure-C.A. 8 to the counter-affidavit.
8. A supplementary counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and we have perused the same.
9. It is well-settled that abolition of a post is a management function and an employee cannot have anything to say in this matter vide K. Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1982 SC 1107. In Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (2) SCC 317, the Supreme Court has held that an employee has no right to continue when the post is abolished.
10. Joyachan M. Sebastian v. Director General and Ors., 1997 (2) LLJ 677, the Supreme Court has held that on abolition of post, the holder of the post has not right to continue on the post.
11. Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ashwani Kumar, 1996 (1) SCC 773, the Supreme Court has observed that when the Project is completed and closed due to nonavailability of funds, the employees have to go along with the closed Project. The High Court was not right in giving the direction to regularise them or to continue them in other places. No vested right is created in temporary employment. Directions cannot be given to regularise their services in the absence of any existing vacancies nor can directions be given to create posts by the State to nonexistent establishment.
12. In Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (2) SCC 317, the Supreme Court has held that when the posts temporarily created for fulfilling the needs of a particular Project or a Scheme limited in its duration comes to an end on account of the need for the Project itself having come to an end either because the Project was fulfilled or had to be abandoned wholly or partially for want of funds, the employer cannot be compelled by a writ of mandamus to continue employing such employees as have been dislodged because such a direction would amount to requisition for cre
ation of posts though not required by the employer and funding such post though the employer did not have the funds available for the purpose.
13. The Tribunal has observed in para 42 of its judgment that the employees, were sacked after they had put in long years of service and had become overage for other employment, and this has inhuman civil consequences. In our opinion, the law is well-settled by the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above. When there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which is to prevail, in accordance with the Latin maxim ‘dura lex sed lex’, which means, ‘the law is hard but it is the law’.
14. Merely because in some decisions, the Supreme Court directed regularisation of employees, it does not amount to laying down any law vide Delhi Administration v. Manohar Lal, AIR 2002 SC 3088 and Municipal Committee v. Hazara Singh etc., AIR 1975 SC 1087, etc.
15. The respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were only purely temporary employees and it is well-settled that temporary employees have no right to the post. The termination of services is not punitive and hence, it is valid.
16. In view of the above discussion the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 27.4.2001, cannot be sustained and it is hereby quashed.