Mr. K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners were appointed as Researchassociates in terms of a scheme formulated by Indian Council of Agriculturalresearch. The scheme is REFERRED TO as general Guidelines for the formulation,processing, scrutiny, sanction, implementation and evaluation of research schemesto be financed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research from its agriculturalproduce cess funds. Para 16 of this scheme states that "a Research Associate shallbe selected by a Selection Committee to be constituted by the Principal Investigatoror the University/institution in accordance with Rules in existence there, or by themanagement Committee in case of ICAR institute. The appointment will not be aregular employment, but restricted in the duration of the project/scheme". ( 2 ). Initially the petitioners were appointed somewhere in the year 1986 and1987. There were similar other appointees as well at different places. When therewas a proposal or actual action terminating the services of these Research Associates writ petitions were filed in Allahabad High Court and ultimately the mattercame up before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9865-1971 /1991. The Supreme Court allowed the petition. The Supreme Court pointed outthat once someone is inducted into a research project in any of the three categoriesthere can be no justification to keep him out before the project is completed exceptin cases of inefficiency or indiscipline. The Supreme Court directed that all thethree categories of the people associated with the research programmes shouldhave employment co-terminus with the projects. ( 3 ). Subsequently, the petitioners were re-employed following the aforesaidorder of the Supreme Court. However, in January, 1993 the Project Director of theicar wrote to the G. B. Pant University which is the third respondent here statingthat- "the 8th plan proposal of cropping systems research project has been approved by the Planning Commission. The number of main and sub-centres ofcropping systems research and on farm units approved for each Agriculturaluniversity during VIII Plan is endosed (Annexure-I ). The Council has madecertain changes in staff position provided at main centres and on-farm unitsas indicated in Annexure-II. These changes will come into effect from 1/04/1993. I request you to take necessary action to redeploy the surplus staff inthe university. You are also requested to take necessary action to fold up theactivities of the centres decided to be closed. " ( 4 ). Annexure-I gave the existing and approved centres in different Universities/organisations. These changes will come into effect from 1/04/1993. I request you to take necessary action to redeploy the surplus staff inthe university. You are also requested to take necessary action to fold up theactivities of the centres decided to be closed. " ( 4 ). Annexure-I gave the existing and approved centres in different Universities/organisations. As against the third respondent University at Pant Nagaragainst the existing main centre, sub-centre and on-farm unit approved during 8thplan gave the figures one against the main centre and one against the on-farm unitomitting the sub-centre, while earlier under on-farm unit two units were permitted. Annexure-II to this letter gave the details of staff position. I find no reference tothese Research Associates in this Annexure-II. The third respondent Universitythought it fit to terminate the services of the petitioners and others on the groundof the respective units being closed. The impugned orders of termination statedthat as per the letter of the Project Director dated 28. 1. 1993 some posts in the 8th fiveyear plan have been curtailed and there is a reference also to another letter of theproject Director dated March 10/15, 1993 about closing down of the unit ofcropping system project working at Ghaziabad. Thereafter there is some referenceto the High Court s order (which obviously should have been the Supreme Courtorder) and the meeting held by the Managing Council and then states that theservices of the. petitioners were terminated w. e. f. 31. 3. 1993. The petitionersquestion this order of termination on several grounds. Mainly it was contendedthat even though the unit might have been closed the project is still not completedand the Research Associates are still necessary to complete the project and havingregard to the scheme formulated by the ICAR REFERRED TO already, the petitioners areentitled to be continued in service. The petitioners also rely on the decision of thesupreme Court REFERRED TO earlier. Petitioners further contend that out of 25 Researchassociates, 22 have been ether re-employed or provided employment in differentorganisations and only these three petitioners are deprived of the benefit of thecontinuous employment. ( 5 ). The learned Counsel for the third respondent raised a preliminary objectionabout the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court. Petitioners further contend that out of 25 Researchassociates, 22 have been ether re-employed or provided employment in differentorganisations and only these three petitioners are deprived of the benefit of thecontinuous employment. ( 5 ). The learned Counsel for the third respondent raised a preliminary objectionabout the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court. The learnedcounsel pointed out that the appointments were made by the third respondent outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the petitioners were alsoworking outside the territorial jurisdiction and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. ( 6 ). No doubt the argument looks to be quite attractive and I would haveventured to consider the same in greater detail but for the fact that I do not find anysuch contention having been raised in the reply to the show cause notice issued bythis Court. Notice was issued to the respondents on 7. 7. 1993. The matter waspending at the notice stage for a considerable time and the rule was issued only on23. 11. 1993. In between these dates the writ petition came up before the Bench onseveral occasions. It is only after hearing the respondents that the rule was issuedby this Court. The object of issuing a notice regarding rule is basically to find outwhether the petitioner has any other effective remedy available to the petitioner orwhether the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court or whetherthe impugned order could be rectified by this Court on getting clarification fromthe contesting respondents and such other allied matters. In Nagendrappa v. State of Kerala, ILR 1993 Karnataka 2361,1 had an occasion to observe as to when noticeregarding Rule should be issued and as to when Rule is to be issued. At page 2365, it was held - "i am of the view that whenever a prima fade case is made out by thepetitioner, normal rule is to issue Rule Nisi. At page 2365, it was held - "i am of the view that whenever a prima fade case is made out by thepetitioner, normal rule is to issue Rule Nisi. Exceptional circumstances, under which, notice re: Rule to be issued are, (i) doubt as to the locus standi of the petitioner; (ii) doubt as to the availability of an alternative remedy; (iii)need to consider the delay in approaching the Court; (iv) likelihood of somebar against considering the petitioner s case; (v) possibility of disposing offthe case without a pleading or statement of objections on the part of therespondent; (vi) cases involving judicial clarifications of a particular situation, without much contest between the parties, and (vii) such other similarmatters, depending upon the circumstances of a case. "if the respondents failed to raise this plea at the earliest point of time it shallhave to be held that the respondent abandoned the plea or at any rate this Courtmay or may not permit the respondent to raise this plea depending upon thecircumstances of each case. Even after the issuance of Rule the plea regarding thenon-maintainability of the writ petition before this Court was not raised by the respondents. According to the learned (counsel for the petitioner a part of the causeof action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court because the appointments were made on the basis of the scheme formulated by the second respondentwhich is situated in New Delhi and the finance mainly flows to the third respondentuniversity from respondents 1 and 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner alsorelied on the letter of the Project Director dated 28. 1. 1993, which I have alreadyquoted above, which requests the third respondent to take necessary action to redeploy the surplus staff in the University. ( 7 ). It is true that the question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter andcan be raised at any stage of the litigation but still I am of the view that there is adiscretion in the Court whether to permit a contesting respondent to raise such aplea or not to permit and I am of the view that this is not a case to permit therespondent to raise this plea nearly 19 months after the issuance of notice of the writpetition. ( 8 ). ( 8 ). The basic question is whether para 16 of the scheme formulated by thesecond respondent still operates in the case of the petitioners. In this connection theaverments made in the writ petition shall have to be REFERRED TO. The petitioners assertin the writ petition as follows:- "that a bare reading of the letter dated 28/01/1993 issued by Indiancouncil of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, order dated 26. 7. 1977 passedby the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and the report submitted by the Headof the Department dated 19/03/1993 will make it obvious that in fact thesub-project initiated at Ghaziabad/ Bijnor districts was never founded but infact the work assigned to this project was shifted/transferred to another sub-project which was in existence earlier and all the employees were directed tobe adjusted in another project at main campus. Pant Nagar, U. P. It is submitted that as per the recommendation made by Indian Council ofagricultural Research, New Delhi in its letter dated 28/01/1993 and asper the direction given by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and as per therecommendations made by the Head of the Department in its report dated 19/03/1993, the Vice Chancellor of G. B. Pant University constitutedunder the Chairmanship of Dean, New Education (Chairman) consisting ofhead of the Department, Senior Scientist, Director Research, Comptroller,establishment Officer and Chief Personnel Officer. The Committee gave itsreport on 24. 4. 1993 and made a recommendation that all the employeesworking at Ghaziabad/bijnor Sub-Centre may be accommodated in otherprojects which were in existence at different places. On the basis of therecommendation of the Committee and on the basis of the aforesaid letterissued by Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi and the reportsubmitted by the Head of the Department and the direction given by thehon ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 26. 7. 1991, about25 personshave been accommodated in different projects, however, the petitioners whoare 3 in numbers have been arbitrarily and discriminately denied of theirrights to be accommodated and their services have been terminated only onthe suggestion of Vice Chancellor of G. B. Pant University. " ( 9 ). in the reply to the notice filed on behalf of third respondent the basic factsare not specifically denied. Para 10 of the reply to the show cause notice refers tothe averments found in paras 6,7 and 8 in the writ petition. The reply is quite vague. " ( 9 ). in the reply to the notice filed on behalf of third respondent the basic factsare not specifically denied. Para 10 of the reply to the show cause notice refers tothe averments found in paras 6,7 and 8 in the writ petition. The reply is quite vague. These relevant averments in the writ petition are brushed aside as irrelevant. Nowhere it is stated that the projects are not in existence. If the basic fact that theproject continues to exist is found in favour of the petitioner, then there can be nodoubt that they are entitled to be continued in service having regard to para 16 ofthe scheme framed by ICAR. On the short ground I am of the view that thepetitioners are entitled to succeed. ( 10 ). This apart, the petitioners have pointed out that the Committee appointedby the third respondent recommended their employment by the University byadjusting the appointments. The petitioners have filed the relevant report of thecommittee as Annexure d . This report refers to the petitioners as well as others. The recommendation is made by the Senior Scientist of the second respondent (ICAR ). This report recommends the transfer of the petitioner by transfer or byadjustment. The petitioners also have filed the orders dated 6. 10. 1993 and25. 5. 1993 whereunder several similar Research Associates have been continued onthe basis of the recommendations of the Committee. ( 11 ). It is undisputed that 22 out of 25 Research Associates have been thuscontinued in service and the three petitioners were quite unfortunate in not gettinglease of further service life. The petitioners also have pointed outthat some of theirjuniors have been re-employed or continue in service. ( 12 ). On the basis of this assertion there could be no doubt that the petitionershave been discriminated in the matter of employment. Denial of employment tothem certainly is discriminatory and shall have to the considered as arbitrary. ( 13 ). Petitioners are not in service and there was no interim order in theirfavour. Mr. Garg, the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that thepetitioners could not be claiming benefit of any salary for the period of their unemployment till today. ( 14 ). The learned Counsel for the third respondent however, submitted thatany direction by this Court to continue the service of petitioners would affect therespondent University financially. ( 15 ). Mr. Garg, the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that thepetitioners could not be claiming benefit of any salary for the period of their unemployment till today. ( 14 ). The learned Counsel for the third respondent however, submitted thatany direction by this Court to continue the service of petitioners would affect therespondent University financially. ( 15 ). The submission of the learned Counsel for the third respondent is not onlythe problem in law but the practical problem faced by the respondent University. I have no doubt that the respondents 1 and 2 would come forward to supplement thefunds of the third respondent in case the circumstances so require because thecontinuance of the service of the petitioners shall have to be considered as incompliance with the scheme formulated by the third respondent. ( 16 ). In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order of terminationare set aside. The petitioners are directed to be continued in service by postingthem in appropriate service. Further it is clarified that the petitioners need not bepaid any salary from the date of their termination till today. Rule made absolute. No costs.