Dr. Vindhyeshwari Prasad Pandey vs Chancellor, Kumaun University and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—In the writ petition, it is the contention of the Petitioner that he was a permanent employee of the University and, accordingly, his services could be terminated only after complying with the provisions contained in the Statute dealing with the service conditions of the Petitioner. In the counter, it is the contention of the University that the Petitioner was never an employee of the University and, accordingly, the conditions of service of the Petitioner were not governed by the statutory provisions contained in the Statute. Therefore, the question is whether the Petitioner, at any point of time, became an employee of the University, either permanent or temporary?

The fact remains that the University Grants Commission made a grant in favour of the University in order to enable the University to carry out research work on �Superconductivity�. While grant was accorded, it was made clear that in respect of the research work, to be carried out, the University Grants Commission will provide necessary expenses for five years, provided the State Government undertakes to continue to incur such expenditure subsequent to expiry of the initial five years period. Under the grant, thus made available to the University, Petitioner was appointed as a Research Assistant. He worked for five years. The University Grants Commission, subsequent thereto, stopped making available any further fund to the University for the research project in question. At that juncture, the State Government, by a letter dated 28.2.2000, after referring to the undertaking it had given to the University Grants Commission, agreed to bear the cost of engagement of two of the persons including Research Assistant for a period of five years from the planned budget with a further condition that subsequent thereto, on the basis of yearly budget. University thereafter, by an order dated 8.3.2001, held out to the Petitioner that he is entitled to the salaries in the scale mentioned in the said letter. In that background, it is the contention of the Petitioner that the State Government created the post in which the Petitioner was working in the University, and that it agreed to provide funds to the University for the purpose of paying salaries attached to the said post, and the Petitioner, having been permitted to draw salaries attached to the said post, became a permanent employee of the University.

We are unable to accept this contention inasmuch as Petitioner�s entry in the University was through the auspices of the University Grants Commission and, accordingly, he had no direct or indirect relationship with the University except that while the research project of the University was funded by the University Grants Commission, the Petitioner came to be associated with the research project, and was entitled to remuneration to be given by the University Grants Commission to the University. The status, thus acquired by the Petitioner, remained unaltered even after University Grants Commission stopped funding the said research project. Accordingly, the Petitioner was neither a temporary nor a permanent employee of the University at any point of time. He was associated with the research work and his association could be put to an end at any point of time, as was the condition of engagement of the Petitioner.

In those circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the termination of the services of the Petitioner is contrary to service conditions of the Petitioner, governed by the Statute governing service conditions of the employees of the University. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed.