Anup Lal Rishi vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

In reference to Respondent No. 8 service of notice deemed sufficient as according to the report of the Registry Respondent No. 8 declined to accept the notice. According to the report of the Registry notice may stand served upon remaining Respondents 6 and 7 also. Thus, no need to issue fresh notice.

The Petitioner, Anup Lal Rishi, challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19th December, 2000 arising out of O.A. No. 338 of 1995 (Anup Lal Rishi v. Union of India and Ors.) The Tribunal declined to grant any relief to the applicant, who was Upper Division Clerk on a regular basis and on substantive post in Doordarshan Kendra, Patna, had applied for direct appointment to the post of Production Assistant.

The contention of the Petitioner was that in pursuance of the advertisement which had been issued he was entitled to be considered for regularisation. In so far as this advertisement is concerned, that is to say, one dated 4th October, 1992, it was stayed by the Patna and Delhi Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The instructions were, to the effect, that casual artists are to be regularised first. Thus, the Director General issued necessary instructions that no recruitment be made in pursuance of advertisement and instead the regularisation of casual artist be considered. It was in pursuance of this that of the four posts which was regularised three were casual artists who were regularised in one set and, thereafter, the remaining post was also filled up from amongst the seniormost casual artist in Production Assistant Cadre.

In the circumstances, there is no discrimination between the Petitioner and the casual artists. The contention of the Petitioner is not that despite his claim someone else amongst the substantive cadre has seen promotion/appointment as Production Assistant. Clearly, the Petitioner was making an application for direct appointment to the post of Production Assistant. The Petitioner was already in regular service. He was not a casual artist.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case that casual artists were to be considered for regularisation, there has been no arbitrariness nor any discrimination against the Petitioner.

The petition is, thus, misconceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed.