AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Justice Narendra Kumar Johari/Member (J)
Due to parity in the nature of grievance and facts pleaded, OA/050/00357/2017, OA/050/00358/2017, OA/050/00382/2017, OA/050/00434/2017, OA/050/00534/2017 and OA/050/00535/2017 listed above are being heard out analogously, upon due notice, to be disposed of by this common order, with consent of all the sides. Incidentally, the learned counsel for applicants is one and the same. So far as the counsels for respondents are concerned, they are different but have argued along the same lines often adopting the arguments of other counsels for respondents. In view of above, we have taken the OA no. 357 of 2017 as leading case, accordingly, for the sake of brevity, the facts of OA/050/00357/2017 (Applicant: Dr. Naresh Kumar Shrivastva & Ors.) is being delineated and Bench discussed hereunder:
The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
“ A. Order No. 15/3/2017-P-VI dated 18th April, 2017 as well as Order No. 15/3/2017- P-6 dated 21.02.2017 issued under the signature of Deputy Director of Programmes (SW), for Director General, Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India), Directorate General, All India Radio, New Delhi as contained in Annexure-A/6-a & A/6-b respectively may be quashed and set aside.
B. The respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claims of applicants for regularization of their services in the Department with all consequential benefits.
C. Any other relief/ reliefs, as the applicant is entitled and Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.”
In short, the facts of the case are that all the applicants had joined the service as Casual/Contractual employees of All India Radio (AIR). Most of the applicants were engaged in the Department since long back and have been continuously rendering their services to All India Radio. The grievance of the applicants is that they have not been regularized due to the inaction of the concerned authorities. Therefore, despite their long services in the Department, aggrieved by the inaction of the competent authorities, thousands of employees all over India, like the applicants in the present case, approached the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunals, and the matter , in reference to redressal of grievance of above aggrieved persons, is pending before the Parliament and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In the meantime, the Opposite Parties/Department, in a calculated move to harm the Casual employees like the applicants, issued the order dated 18.04.2017, whereby it was decided to conduct audition/rescreening for fresh as well as existing employees in terms of their order dated 21.02.2017.
The orders dated 21.02.2017 and 18.04.2017 are motivated as well as invidious to the applicants and are wholly unjustified. The applicants have submitted sufficient repeated applications/representations before the administration and Department authorities, but no action was taken on the above representations. Consequently, several cases have been filed before various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein interim relief was sought by the applicants.
In that connection, Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, vide order dated 07.05.2014, directed the respondents/Department to consider the case of the applicants/petitioners for regularization in the light of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, AIR 2006 SC 1806.
The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Ernakulam also considered the matter in OA Nos. 1182/2012 and 475/2013, wherein it was stated by the respondents that Prasar Bharati is in the process of formulation of a scheme for regularization of Casual artists and such regularization shall be taken up in terms of the said scheme immediately after the scheme is finalized. The Bench directed the respondents to finalize the scheme within six months.
The respondents, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Patna approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (CAT) Nos. 38 & 175 of 2015, which were decided on 27.10.2015, whereby the Hon’ble High Court extended the time for finalization of the scheme for a further period of six months. Aggrieved by the above order, the respondents/Opposite Parties approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide CC No(s). 13876-13877/2016, wherein an order of status quo was passed on 05.09.2016.
Since, before finalization of the scheme, the Opposite Parties were bent upon conducting audition/rescreening tests for the fresh as well as existing employees in terms of the orders dated 21.02.2017 and 18.04.2017, the applicants filed the present OA seeking quashing of the orders dated 21.02.2017 and 18.04.2017 , as their main relief.
Written statement has been filed by the Opposite Parties, in which they have stated that the applicants were never appointed against any post by All India Radio stations nor selected on the basis of any competition/ service rule. They were simply empanelled to be offered bookings as and when required, as per the requirements of the programmes at the radio stations, with the prescribed fee. It is relevant to note that they had been engaged by All India Radio for a maximum of six days in a month or 72 days in a year, if required.
It has also been mentioned in the written statement that, in compliance of the order of the Tribunal at Ernakulam Bench, a Committee was constituted in DG:AIR to explore the feasibility of framing guidelines for regularization of casuals engaged by various AIR stations all over India. The Committee submitted its report on 28.02.2016, stating that since such casuals were performing their work for a few hours in a day and for a maximum of six days in a month or 72 days in a year, any attempt for regularization was fraught with complications and was against the interest of the organization. Therefore, the idea of regularization was neither administratively feasible nor economically viable, and regularization on the whole was against the principle of natural justice as well as public interest.
It has also been mentioned that the applicants were never appointed to any civilian post against any clear-cut vacancy. Rather, they were being engaged as Casual Presenters as and when required to present the programmes broadcast by the radio stations, and that too for not more than six days in a month. For better performance in presenting the programmes, an audition test of their voice quality is a common practice for evaluation of their performance.
The orders dated 21.02.2017 and 18.04.2017 were issued with the approval of the competent authorities to audition fresh talent in the open market and to rescreen the existing panel with the help of audition/rescreening committees comprising outside experts having specialization and expertise in diverse fields.
The Casual Presenters are invited only when required to present the programmes and have no role in designing the format of the programmes, positioning the channels, and policy matters. There is no sanctioned strength of the performing artists. The matter is already sub judice before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The OA is devoid of merit and is required to be dismissed.
Patna 4. Learned Counsels for the Opposite Parties have submitted a supplementary written statement, wherein they mentioned subsequent development with regard to the dispute between the parties.
Heard the arguments of Learned Counsels of both the side and perused the record.
It has been brought to the notice of this Tribunal that, vide order dated 25.01.2019 passed in OA No. 138/2018, this Tribunal directed that further proceedings of the instant OA shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the matter having similar subject matter, i.e., OA No. 2154/2017, pending before the Principal Bench of CAT.
OA No. 2154/2017 was subsequently dismissed by the Principal Bench, CAT, vide order dated 20.05.2024.
It has also been accepted by learned Counsel for the applicants that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai has decided the OA Nos. 373/2017, 443/2017, 439/2017, 469/2017 and CP No. 62/2019, which were having the subject matter and facts in issue similar to the present OA, in favour of the Opposite Parties/respondents. Accordingly, the Bench has dismissed the aforesaid original applications with observation that the applicants are not holders of any civil post and, therefore, the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to entertain and try their cases. Further, due to the cancellation of the process itself, the cause of action, if any, which had arisen in favour of the applicants, also does not survive.
The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Writ Petition No. 8941 of 2018, Vedavati Mohan Gokhale & Ors. Vs. Programme Executive/Head of Office, Akashwani Sangli & Ors., held as under:—
“………..
3.In the context of the challenge which is raised in the above Writ Petition, the terms and conditions on the basis of which the empanelment was made of the selected candidates assumes importance, the relevant excerpt is therefore reproduced herein under for the sake of ready reference :
“ This is not, and will not be, an employment.
. You will be invited for assignment by the AIR station strictly on AS AND WHEN REQUIRED basis as per the day to day requirement of programmes at the station, and you availability on the date and time of assignment.
. As per rules, the maximum possible number of assignment days is 6 (six) days in a month and 72 days in a year as per programme exigencies. However, no right is conferred on you to demand a booking.
. You will not be entitled to any fixed or specific number of bookings much less regular employment as you are not on the establishment of All India Radio.
. This organization has no objection and does not restrict you from continuing in/taking up a regular or temporary employment in any other organization/ institution or being self-employed.
. You have every right not to accept the assignment for which you may be invited as per programme exigencies. However, once the assignment is accepted, you will be under obligation to perform the accepted assignment.
. You have to accord your consent in advance for performing the assignment.” Hence the terms and conditions of empanelment disclose that the same would not to be an employment with Prasar Bharati and that the assignment was to be granted to the empaneled candidates as and when required basis and the maximum assignment which an empaneled candidate was entitled to is 6 days in a month and 72 days in a year. The said terms and conditions are therefore a pointer to the fact that the empanelment of the petitioners does not create any right in them for continuance as such and to assert the said right by way of any judicial proceedings.
4.It seems that a complaint was made regarding the empanelment to the PMO pursuant to which a fact finding enquiry was conducted and a decision was taken to cancel the entire selection process leading to empanelment and to carry out a de-novo process. In the said de-novo process the petitioners can undoubtedly participate.
5.Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we do not deem this a fit case to Bench exercise our writ jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. The above writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”
Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition. It is apparent that the factual position in the aforesaid writ petition was similar to that of the present OA.
The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, in OA No. 96/2018, passed the order dated 10.04.2019 and dismissed the OA with the following observations:—
“…………..
13.The applicants in this case are agitating their claim on the basis of aforesaid decision of Ernakulum Bench of this Tribunal as well as of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam . However, the fact is that High Court of Kerala has also observed as under :-
A perusal of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal shows that, what has been directed is only to finalise the scheme that was stated to be in existence, within an outer limit of six months. The Central Administrative Tribunal has not issued any directions regarding the content of the scheme or the manner in which the scheme has to be formulated. Therefore, we are not satisfied that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the issue of the said direction.
14.Nevertheless, in compliance of the aforesaid directions, the respondents have constituted a Committee which comprises of ADG(A&P, DDG(SW) and Director A-II and the said Committee after extensive deliberation on the issues, gave its recommendations, as quoted above, which were approved by the competent authority. We repeat here that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the courts have no power to even issue any direction for regularization except as laid down previously.
15.In view of the above facts and circumstances of this case, and the fact that the respondents have constituted a Committee, in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal and High Court of Kerala, which comprises of ADG (A&P), DDG (SW) and Director A-II of the respondents organization and the same Committee after exhaustive deliberation on the issues gave recommendations to the effect that any attempts for regularization of the Patna services of the applicants is fraught with complications and would jeopardize the interests of the broadcasting organization and further observed that the said idea is neither administratively feasible nor economically viable and against the principles of natural justice and against the larger public interest and the fact that the said recommendations were accepted by the competent authority.
16.Hence, we do not find any merit in the present OA as the issue of creation of posts have been squarely dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.U. Joshi (Supra), relevant portion of the same has already been quoted above, and the manner of regularization has also been dealt with by the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) and also the fact that the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court still holds sway, this OA is disposed of in terms of the detailed order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Batch of cases (CWP No. 319/2001 and others) vide judgment dated 13.2.2002, which has already been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 11855/2022 vide Order dated 11.7.2002.
………………….” The aforesaid OA was also factually similar to the present OA. The Civil Appeal nos. 8859-8860 of 2016 filed by the Director General, All India Radio in Director General, All India Radio Vs. Purushothaman C. & Ors. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment dated 27.10.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, whereby the Hon’ble Court had granted an order of status quo on 05.09.2016, has been disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30.10.2025, with following observations:—
“…………..
5.In our view, looking to the nature of direction as issued by CAT and the High Court and taking note of the fact that the scheme has already been formulated, as contended by the appellant, the other issues cannot be adjudicated in this appeal.
6.However, in case the respondents apply for the reliefs as prayed before the CAT and for regularization under the scheme, their case would be considered in accordance with law and if any grievance survives. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeals stand disposed of as having become infructuous. Bench Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
The applicants were engaged by All India Radio as Casual Presenters and were not appointed against any sanctioned civil post in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules. They were engaged only as and when their services were required, subject to the prescribed limit of engagement. They were, therefore, not holders of any civil post under the Union or under any authority contemplated under Article 323A of the Constitution of India.
Further, the applicants were neither appointed in accordance with the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India nor were they governed by the governed by Part XIV of the Constitution of India. Their engagement as Casual Presenters, by itself, did not confer upon them the status of Government servants or holders of civil posts.
In these circumstances, the grievance raised by the applicants essentially relates to their engagement as Casual Presenters and their claim for regularization, rather than to any existing appointment to a civil post. Therefore, they cannot challenge the policy decisions and directions given by All India Radio before this Tribunal. In view of the nature and status of their engagement, the present controversy does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Consequently, this Tribunal cannot adjudicate upon /grant the relief as per the claim raised by the applicants in the present OA.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the applicants have failed to establish that they are holders of civil posts or that their engagement is governed by the statutory service conditions which would attract the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the controversy. The OA being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
The copy of this order be placed in the record of Original Application Nos. 358/2017, 382/2017, 434/2017, 534/ 2017 and 535/2017.