ORDER

[Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.P.Madhavan, Member(J)]

This is an OA filed seeking the following relief:-

“...to call for the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in its No.2(12)/2014-OTC/CHN dated 30.6.2014 and quash the same in so far as the applicants are concerned and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicants herein as Research Scientist Grade-I and consequently regularize their service as Research Scientist Grade-I and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and thus render justice.”

2. The case of the applicants is that the applicants were appointed by the respondents as Research Scientist (RS) Grade I and II and Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) in the Open Technology Centre (OTC) of the respondents. The said appointment was as per notification on 25.6.07. About 22 persons were recruited in the OTC established in 2008. Applicants 1 and 2 joined as RS Grade I in 2008 and applicants 6 and 7 joined as RS Grade I in the year 2011 directly. Applicants 3, 4 and 5 were initially appointed as JRF in 2008 and thereafter they were appointed as RS Grade I in 2011 when the second batch was recruited. According to them, all the applicants were engaged in the year 2008 onwards. Though the appointment was projected as contract employment, their services were continuous and without any break. The applicants raised an issue of regularization and the 2nd respondent had suddenly terminated the services w.e.f. 30.6.14. When the appointments were terminated, the 2nd respondent had assured that they will consider them and take back. Believing the words of the 2nd respondent, the applicants were waiting for the call.

But to their surprise, the respondents went ahead to fill up the vacancies with another selection. But the name of the post was formally changed and they had employed the workers under a contractor i.e. 3rd party. Then the applicants came to know that the respondents are not going to engage them and hence they filed OA to quash the order dated 30.6.14 terminating them.

3. The respondents appeared and filed a detailed reply contending that OTC was an initiative of NIC under Information and Communication Technology (ICT). One pilot project by name OTC was started and the project was funded by Department of Information & Technology. They had hired manpower initially as per guidelines of the Department of Science and Technology. The following awards were made:

“Junior Research Fellowship Award and R.S. Grade I & II.”

The notification was published in 2007. Interviews were conducted and 29 awardees were hired in 2008. Initially, appointment was for a period of 2 years extendable annually subject to the continuation of project. A second batch of recruitees were selected in March 2012. According to the respondents, they had mentioned all the conditions of employment in the notification (produced as Annexure A2) and the appointees were taken for the particular project of OTC. The department extended the project only for 3 months ie. upto 30.6.14. The applicants were intimated regarding the same on 05.5.2014 itself. The respondents had produced the appointment orders of the applicants and the letter intimating the discontinuance of the project as Annexure R4 & R9. They had also produced an undertaking given by the applicants when they joined the OTC. So, according to them, the applicants were hired only for the purpose of a project and when the project was completed, they were terminated. The applicants have no rights for regularization and re-

employment. So, the OA is liable to be dismissed.

4. We have anxiously heard both sides and perused the pleadings. The counsel for the applicants would contend that the applicants were continuously in employment from 2008 till they were terminated in the year 2014 and they are entitled to get regularization. According to them, they were appointed on a scale of pay i.e. RS Grade I pay was fixed at Rs.15,600/- with Grade Pay Rs.5400/- in the Pay Band-III. Due to the termination, the applican