Absorption scheme eligibility and cut-off date upheld; courts cannot compel relaxation or create a right to regularization.

A one-time absorption scheme requiring 15 years' continuous research service and fixing a cut-off date was found to have a rational basis and was not shown to be arbitrary or unworkable. Relaxation under the scheme remained a matter for the competent authority, and a writ court could not compel mandatory waiver of eligibility conditions or rewrite the scheme to include additional service periods. The respondents had no enforceable right to regularization, and legitimate expectation could not create eligibility or override the scheme. The High Court's contrary approach was unsustainable, and the administrative decision under the scheme was restored in substance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the scheme's requirement of 15 years' continuous research service, together with the fixation of the cut-off date, was arbitrary or unworkable. (ii) Whether the High Court could direct the authority to grant relaxation under the scheme and treat additional service, including service under the Quick Hire Scheme, as mandatorily eligible. (iii) Whether the respondents had any enforceable right to regularization or could invoke legitimate expectation to challenge the scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the scheme's requirement of 15 years' continuous research service, together with the fixation of the cut-off date, was arbitrary or unworkable.

Analysis: The scheme was a one-time measure framed to meet the organisation's research needs and to implement the earlier directions for considering absorption. The employer was entitled to prescribe eligibility criteria and choose a cut-off date, so long as the choice was not arbitrary. The fixation of 2.5.1997 was linked to the date when the Court directed consideration of a scheme, and the Court found that such a date had a rational basis. The finding that 13 years was the maximum possible tenure was held to be factually incorrect, and the record showed that the scheme could validly take into account various categories of research engagement. The 15-year criterion was not shown to be irrational or unworkable.

Conclusion: The 15-year eligibility requirement and the cut-off date were held valid and not arbitrary.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could direct the authority to grant relaxation under the scheme and treat additional service, including service under the Quick Hire Scheme, as mandatorily eligible.

Analysis: Relaxation under the scheme was a matter for the competent authority to consider within the scheme's framework. The Court held that a writ court could not compel exercise of discretionary power in a particular manner unless the conditions for such relaxation were satisfied. The scheme itself conferred flexibility on the Director, but the decision whether and how to exercise that discretion remained administrative. The Court further held that inclusion of certain service periods, including work under the Quick Hire Scheme, did not justify judicial substitution of a different eligibility rule.

Conclusion: No mandamus could be issued to compel relaxation or to rewrite the scheme's eligibility conditions.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondents had any enforceable right to regularization or could invoke legitimate expectation to challenge the scheme.

Analysis: The Court reiterated that regularization is not a mode of recruitment and does not confer a right to permanence. The respondents had no vested legal right to absorption merely because a scheme for consideration had been framed. The doctrine of legitimate expectation could not override the scheme or create eligibility where none existed, especially in a matter governed by Article 14 and Article 16 considerations. The challenge based on legitimate expectation therefore failed.

Conclusion: The respondents had no enforceable right to regularization, and legitimate expectation did not assist them.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's judgment was unsustainable, and the scheme and the administrative decision were restored in substance, resulting in success for the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters of recruitment or absorption under a policy scheme, the employer may validly prescribe eligibility criteria and a cut-off date, and courts will not compel discretionary relaxation or create a right to regularization absent a legal entitlement.

---