Principal scientist v. 1. The union of lndia

.....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or orders or Direction mainly in the nature of Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction by declaring the disposal of the representation by the respondents is irregular, biased, irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 16 ot the Constitution of lndia and direct the respondents to cancel the Emeritus Scientist Award given to Respondent No.4 and restore the research work done by the scientists including the petitioner herein in their respective names. |.A.NO:1 OF 2013 (WPMP. NO: 158:19 OF 2013) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Emeritus Scientist Award given to Respondent No.4 by treating the Research material done by the petitioner and other scientists as it was falsely claimed by Respondent No.4, pending disposal of main writ petition- Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.ANASUYA Counsel for the Respondents : -- The Court made the following ORDER I I HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR ORDER: WRTTPE TITION No.128 55 of 2O13 This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:_ ',j:"!::]:r:|* diyoylt o[ the_ representation by the respondents is trregutnr, btased, irrntionnl, a,rbitrary, discriminilory and t,iolalioe of ArticLe 74, 16 of the Constitution of i nctia and direct'the respondents to cnncel the Emeritus Scientist Au,ard gioen to n rp""irt No.4 nnd restore the research u,ork done by.. the slientists including the petitioner herein in their respectioe nanps .,, " '6 "

2. Brief Iacts in this writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Principal Scientist in project Directorate on poultry (pDp), Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad, upto 31.03.2013. petitioner case is that one Dr.Ramashray Prasad Sharma i.e., respondent No.4 who joined the pDp in Februa ry,7999 as Principai Scientist was later appointed as Director in July, 2000 and continued the same position till December,2010 and illegally claimed some of the research achievements and improvements brought by the petitioner and other scientist and basing on strch achievements and improvements for the year 2002 and 2003, responclent No.4 has applied and got selected for the post of Emeritus scientist as post-retirement job and claimecl the monetary benefit for a period of two years. Subsequently, the petitioner on 01,.17.2077, made a complaint before the Chairman, serection_cum_standing Cornmittee, Emeritus Scientists Scheme, Inclian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi, ancl Dy Director General (Edn), ICAR, Krishi Anusandha Bhawan-ll, ptrsa, New Delhi and requested the authorities to 2 review the application of respondent No.4 a.d take suitable action. Thereafter, Assistant Director General (HRD) of \CAR ,ide letter dated

28.08.2012, informed the petitioner that 'your representation oide retter no.CSS/RTI/SE/2011/03 dated 1.11.2011 addressed to Chnirman, SCC/DG, ICAR 8 DDG (Edn.) has been considered nt tlu appropriate lmeL irt tltc Council nnd to mention thnt there is no oalitl grountl in the representation to debnr Dr.R.P.Sharma for autard of Emeritus scientist,. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is fiied.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 misused the authority and grabbed the research achie.rrements . of other scientist for personal gains and the same is not corrected by the conholling officers. Learned counsel further submitted that the ICAR ought not to havc blindly accepted the applicant of respondent No.,l and awarded the Emeritus Scientist position.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that instead of conducting a detail enquiry by correlating the work done by respondent No.4, the ICAR issued letter dated 28.08.2012, wherein the authority without issuing any valid reasons simply stated that there is no valid ground in the petitioner's complaint dated 01.11.2011. Learned counsel further pray this Court to direct the respondent authorities to cancel the Emeritus Scientist Award given to respondent No.4 and restore the research work done by the scientists including the petitioner. I , 3

5. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent No.6, denying the allegation. It is submitted that upon representation of the petitioner, the matter was reviewed and the Animal Science Division z;ide letter dated

16.01.2012 stated that 'there is no merit in the representation of petitioner and the same may be ignored while considering the case for award of Emeritus Scientist Scheme'. Thereafter, respondent No.4 was evaluated as per the guidelines. It is further stated that the petitioner while in his tenure at PDP had not filed any compliant against respondent No'4' However, filed the writ petition alteging that respondent No.4 falsely claimed several achievements for award of Emeritus scientist.

6. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No'6 submits that except the petitioner, the other scientist have not questioned the said awarcl and further submitted that the ludging committee by following the guidelines had passed the award of Emeritus scientist

7. Heard and perused the material available on record'

8. It is pertinent to note that in the matters of awarding or recognizing the work of the scientist, it involves both technical as well as academic contributions and it is the sole discretion of the committee to aPpraise whether the applicant/candidate can be awarded or not and the same cannot be decided in the writ at this belated stage. In view of the same, the 4 present writ petition being devoid of merits fails and is liable to be dismissed 9 For the foregoing reason, this writ petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed No order as to costs. /ffRUE COPY// SD/. LIKARJUNA RAO ANT REGISTRAR S SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI A.ANASUYA, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CD Copies To SA KKS W HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 910312025 I ORDER WP.No.12855 ot 2013 o() 7 t oR 1HE s14 14. 12 rlJE 2025 F.SD,.,; r.,,r f, +-a DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. qco1tr% &"