Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The applicant has filed present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

“(i) That Annexure A-25 dated 12.07.2021 and Annexure A-26 dated 24.08.2021 be quashed and set aside.

(ii) It be declared that the procedure followed by the respondents is not in accord with judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court dated 02.01.2021.

(iii) A direction be issued to the respondents to reinstate the applicant on the assignment on which he was working w.e.f. 25.02.2020 and to further regularize his services as per policy dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure A-22) with all consequential benefits.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant has served the respondents as an Anchor/Presenter/Compere aw.e.f. 20.08.2003 to 25.02.2020. The respondent No.2 issued circular on 05.09.2019 (Annexure A-6) for regularizing the irregular appointments/ engagement in Prasar Bharti (All India Radio and Doordarshan) in pursuance of the Department of Personnel & Training O.M. dated 11.12.2006, as per parameters laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi‟s case. The applicant applied for his regularization in pursuance to the circular dated 05.09.2019, vide application dated 01.10.2019 (Annexure A-7). The applicant was asked to appear for rescreening on 22.09.2019 at 9.00 AM at Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla as per the letter dated 29.08.2019. The applicant sought exemption from appearing in the screening test keeping in view, inter alia, his working experience and prescribed age limit of 21- 35 years under which the applicant does not fall. The respondent No. 5 vide communication dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure A-10) informed that the condition regarding age limit does not apply to existing panel of casual Anchors/Presenters/Compere and that it is mandatory for existing panel to appear for re-screening and asked the applicant to appear in re-screening test on 22.09.2019. The applicant again requested vide letter dated 13.09.2019 for exemption to appear in the re-screening test. The respondent no. 5 sought clarification from Respondent No. 3 as to whether the services of the applicant, who did not appear for re-screening be continued or discontinued. The Respondent no. 5 replied that the legal opinion be sought in the matter. The learned ASGI, HP opined vide letter dated 13.02.2020 that those persons, who did not participate in the re-screening may not be engaged in future and only those persons who had participated in the re-screening/selection will be engaged in future. Since the applicant was not getting programmes w.e.f. 25.02.2020 and his case for regularization under circular dated 05.03.2019 was not considered, he filed CWP No. 2957/2020 before the Hon‟ble High Court of H.P., which was disposed of vide order dated 02.01.2021(Annexure A-21) with the direction to consider and revalue the performance of the writ petitioner by validly constituted screening committee for the relevant assignment and thereafter they may proceed to assign work to him after making minimal increases in the numerical strength of anchors viz-a-vis, the programs broadcast by the respondents concerned. The respondents did not comply with the directions of the Hon‟ble High Court. The applicant filed COCP No. 124 of 2021. During the pendency of the COCP, the respondents asked the applicant to appear for rescreening test followed by interview on 12.07.2021 and it was conveyed that the process undertaken is not and will not be considered for an employment and after empanelment, if successful, the applicant may be invited for assignment as and when required basis. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed an application No. 7247/2021 in the COCP seeking directions to the respondents to re-evaluate the performance of the applicant for assignment of performance. The COCP along with CCMP No. 7247/2021 was disposed of with the direction that the Committee which has now been constituted by the respondents shall evaluate the suitability of the petitioner, strictly in terms of the judgment passed by this Court and parameters foreign to the judgment shall not be introduced by the committee for the said purpose. Though the applicant does not have any legal claim, however, for ensuring satiation being meted to the pristine concept of justice, moreso, when his induction therein onto was made by the then prevalent selection committee, and also when his performance is not reflected to be unsatisfactory, (i) thereupon for undoing the ill effects of his crossing the prescribed age bar, whereupon he would become de-capacitated to seek assignment of works as presenters/anchors of the programme concerned, hence relaxation in age, to the petitioner may be reconsidered to become afforded to him.

3. The applicant has been declared as “not approved” in the final result of rescreening test held on 12.07.2021. The applicant filed COCP No. 364 of 2021, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2021 (Annexure A-27) with the observations that there was only direction to reconsider and revalue the performance of the applicant and thus there appears to be no reason for keeping the petition alive. However, the liberty was given to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate court of law, if he is still aggrieved.

4. The applicant has filed the present Original Application contending that the procedure evolved by the respondents was against the mandate given by the Hon‟ble High Court in the judgment passed on 02.01.2021 in which it was categorically observed by the Hon‟ble Court that the performance of the applicant is not reflected to be unsatisfactory. The respondent No.6 has not followed the same procedure as followed earlier while making reassessment/reevaluation of the Anchor/Presenter/ Compere and the respondent no. 6, with malafide intention, has given the question paper to the applicant to solve the same, whereas the job of Anchor/Presenter/Compere is not to answer the question but to extract the material from the expert, who comes to the studio. It has been alleged that the Respondent No.6 has adopted the procedure just to oust the applicant as Anchor/ presenter and further to mar his prospects for seeking regularization in terms of policy decision dated 16.12.2020. It has been contended that there is not a whisper in the impugned letter dated 24.08.2021 as to why he has not been approved, when he was earlier twice screened by the then Selection Committee and his performance was found to be satisfactory at all times. Moreover, once the performance of the applicant was held to be satisfactory as per the judgment passed by this Hon‟ble High Court on 02.01.2021, which findings have not been challenged by the respondents, there was no occasion for the respondents to declare the applicant as „not approved‟ for selection more particularly when nothing was found against the applicant from the date of his engagement with the respondents since 2003. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme in the case of Arun Kumar Rout and others versus State of Bihar and others’[1998(1)SLJ 445(SC)].

5. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. It has been stated that the applicant did not appear for re-screening held in the year 2019. In compliance with the directions passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of H.P, the rescreening/re-evaluation was held by constituting 5 members Screening Committee as per DG‟s prior approval, wherein the applicant did not qualify the process of re-screening/re-evaluation. Thus, the applicant did not get subsequent bookings as per the guidelines of Directorate of Doordarshan. It has also been stated that the re-screening/reevaluation process was conducted as per norms as the script was provided well in time to comfort the applicant, where after the performance was evaluated by keeping in view the requirement of assignment of Anchor/Presenter.

6. The respondents further stated that the applicant was selected on casual assignment basis, as Anchor/Presenter/Compere on the basis of screening/interview/audition along with the other candidates. The applicant and other selected candidates were selected on a panel for rotational assignments with a maximum of 6-7 days assignments a month or 72 assignments in a year. The selection of the applicant and other candidates is an empanelment and it is only for a functional requirement of organization on „as and when required basis‟. It has been further stated that regularization scheme is being pursued by the Prasar Bharati Secretariat for irregular appointments/engagements made during the period 1996 to 2006 and is not applicable to casual assignees, who had performed 07 duties in month and maximum of 72 days out of 365 days in year. This regularization scheme is independently pursued at Prasar Bharti Secretariat and has nothing to do with re-screening process being conducted at various Doordarshan Kendras in the entire network.

7. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions which he raised in the Original Application.

8. We have heard learned senior counsel for the applicant and learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents, and gone through the material available on record.

9. This is the 5th round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, the applicant has approached the Hon‟ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh by way of C.W.P. No. 2957/2020 seeking mandamus upon the respondents for assigning him the work of anchoring/compering the apposite programs over Doordarshan. The Hon‟ble High Court vide order dated 02.01.2021 disposed of the Writ Petition with the direction as under:-

“9. Even if, for all the afore stated reasons, the writ petitioner, does not have any legal claim, however, for ensuring satiation being meted to the pristine concept of justice, more so, when his induction therein onto was made, by the then prevalent selection committee, and, also when his performance, is not reflected to be unsatisfactory, (i) thereupon for, undoing the ill effects of his crossing the prescribed age bar, whereupon he would become de-capacitated to seek assignment, of works, as, presenters/anchors of the programs concerned, hence relaxations in age, to the petitioner may be reconsidered to become reafforded to him.

10. Significantly since, on 22.9.2019, he became invited, for participating in the relevant process, and also despite, the eligible aspirants, successfully becoming enlisted for the relevant purpose, yet, when relaxation(s) in age, was granted only an year earlier to the petitioner (i) whereupon there is a concession on the part of the respondents, that relaxation(s) in age can be granted, (ii) whereupon the afore re-relaxations in age, hence for, ensuring the non-torpedoing the legitimate expectation, of, the writ petitioner, to become reenlisted, as, an anchor or presenter of the programs concerned, are deemed fit, for being reconsidered, for, being re-accorded by the respondents, and, they are also directed, to, thereafter, consider and reevaluate the performance, of, the writ petitioner, by the validly constituted screening committee, for, the relevant assignment, and, thereafter they may proceed to assign work to him, after, making minimal increases in the numerical strength, of, anchors, vis-a-vis, the program broadcast by the respondents concerned, as, given increase(s) in the programs broadcast or telecast through the aegis, of the respondents, whereupon, a proportionate increases in the numerical strength (s) of comperes, presenters and anchors thereof, is but imperative.”

10. It has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the respondents neither assigned any programme to the applicant nor complied with the judgment dated 02.01.2021, which compelled the applicant to file COPC No. 124/2021. The Hon‟ble High Court vide order dated 08.07.2021 closed the contempt proceedings with the observations as under:-

“4. There is also on record CMP No. 7247 of 2021 filed by the petitioner wherein it has been mentioned on the strength of the documents appended therewith that though the committee has now been constituted in terms of the judgment passed by this Court but the committee intends to re-evaluate the performance of the petitioner by also interviewing him which is not in consonance with the directions passed by the Court. Mr. Bhardwaj submits that the Court may observe that the performance of the petitioner shall be re-evaluated, strictly in terms of the directions passed by the Court, in judgment dated 02.01.2021 (supra). Ordered accordingly. The committee which has now been constituted by the respondents shall evaluate the suitability of the petitioner, strictly in terms of the judgment passed by this Court and parameters foreign to the judgment shall not be introduced by the committee for the said purpose.”

11. The applicant again approached the Hon‟ble High Court by filing the COPC No. 364/2021 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in judgment dated 02.01.2021 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court. The COPC was disposed of vide order dated 14.12.2021 with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate court of law, if he is still aggrieved. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the respondents declaring the applicant as „not approved‟ in the screening test held on 12.07.2021, the applicant approached the Hon‟ble High Court by way of CWP No. 8378/2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.01.2022 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.

12. In terms of the liberty granted by the Hon‟ble High Court, the applicant has assailed the order dated 24.08.2021 vide which the respondents, on the basis of final result of screening test held on 12.07.2021 by the Screening Committee, declared him „not approved‟. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent no. 6 prejudiced against the applicant due to filing of contempt petition against him before the Hon‟ble High Court and thereby rejected the claim of the applicant for regularization. It has been specifically pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that there is not a whisper in the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 as to why he has not been approved once he has been screened twice by the Screening committee and his performance was found to be satisfactory in all times.

13. We have carefully gone through the final result dated 12.07.2021 (Annexure A-25). The respondents in their reply has categorically submitted that every presenter before he/she is allowed to go on air, is subject to an audition test of voice quality, experts intonation, presentation style and command over language. From the perusal of the impugned final result, it is noticed that the members of the Screening Committee have simply awarded the scores to the applicant. However, there is no detail of parameters applied for screening and awarding scores to the applicant. Further, it has also been stated by the respondents that the candidate must have capacity to write scripts/announcements as well as ability to translate from English into Hindi/regional language and vice versa. The final result (Annexure A-25) has no reference of these parameters also. It is admitted fact that the applicant was performing the duties in the same capacity and his performance since beginning i.e. 2003 till 2020 as found to be satisfactory as observed in the order dated 02.01.2021 by the Hon‟ble High Court. Even he has gained experience during the said period which has been ignored by the respondents in finalizing the result dated 12.07.2021. The applicant had served the respondents for the last 16 years without any adverse performance.

14. Admittedly, the applicant has filed the contempt petition arraying respondent no. 6 as Party. The respondents have arranged the re-screening of the applicant in compliance of the order of Hon‟ble High Court, but they have not provided the copy of question paper as well as final result to applicant which is not in accordance with due procedure prescribed for the examination and re-screening. The applicant had procured the copy of question paper and final result by way of application under RTI Act which shows that there is a lack of element of transparency in the process at the level of respondent no. 6. The respondents have also taken the defence that the applicant was selected on casual assignment basis as Anchor/Presenter/Compere on the basis of screening/interview/audition along with other candidates. It is noteworthy to record here with the applicant is working with the respondents in the same capacity since 2003, after undergoing screening/interview/audition taken by the respondents. The respondents submitted that the applicant and other selected candidates were selected on a panel for rotational assignments with a maximum of 6-7 days assignments a month or 72 assignments in a year. The selection of applicant is an empanelment and it is only for functional requirement of organization on as and when required basis. The scheme for regularization is for those irregular appointees/engages who had performed services on a regular basis for the period 1996 to 2006 and not for casual assignees who had performed 7 assignments in a month and maximum of 72 days out of 365 days in a year. The said plea of the respondents is contradictory to their action, as they have required the applicant to participate for screening with reference to his application for regularization submitted in terms of regularization scheme. The said contention of respondents is rejected.

15. Learned senior counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 541/1997 decided on 31.05.2013) by the Patna Bench of C.A.T. which has rejected the contention of the respondents and directed them to consider the applicant therein for regularization with observations as under:-

“5. The applicants have further submitted that the casual artists of AIR filed a case bearing OA No. 822/1991, praying for the benefits as has been granted in the Anil Kumar Mathur's case. The CAT, Principal Bench, in the said OA, had directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to formulate a regularisation scheme for its casual employee/workers and to implement within time limits stipulated in the judgment dated 14.02.1992, but in pursuance of order passed in OA No. 822 of 1991 ( Suresh Sharma and Others vs. UOI & Others), the AIR had only extended the benefits of regularisation to the Casual Production Assistant and Casual General Assistant, which is contrary to the order passed by the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 822/1991. It is stated that leaving the Casual Announcer-cum-Comparer out of regularisation scheme is arbitrary and illegal since Casual Production Assistants and Casual General Assistants are being regularised as per the regularisation scheme against completion of 72 working days in a year. It is again submitted that in different cases of AIR, the Principal Bench of CAT had directed regularisation of casual employee of AIR, who have not completed 72 working days in a year. It is submitted that the respondents along with the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has intentionally only kept out the Casual Announcer-cum-Comparer from the benefits of regularization on the mistaken concept of the overall situation and plea that they were not party in the OA No. 822/1991. Thus the casual announcer could not be provided with the benefits of regularisation from the scheme in spite of the fact that even if the applicants had already completed 72 working days in a year and also they are exactly similarly situated casual employees like Production Assistant and General Assistants and they are booked under the same Contract Sheet, i.e. P-5 of the AIR, thereby giving a complete go by the order passed in OA 822/91 in Suresh Sharma's case. It is submitted that the applicants should be regularized against the vacant post of Announcer-cum-Comparer as there are 9 posts of Announcer and three posts of Comparer are vacant as evident from the letter dated 07.05.2012 of the AIR, Patna.”

16. We have also found the contradictory stand of the respondents regarding stoppage of subsequent bookings to the applicant. The respondents in their reply have stated that the applicant did not qualify the process of screening/re-evaluation, therefore, he could not get the subsequent booking as per the guidelines of Directorate of Doordarshan, whereas while considering the representation of the applicant seeking allocation of programmes to him the reason assigned for non allocation of programmes was on the basis of legal opinion obtained from the office of learned ASGI, HP, who opined that those casual anchors/comperes, who have not participated in rescreening/selection process, may not be engaged in future.

17. We find substance in the argument of learned senior counsel that while taking legal opinion from the office of learned ASGI, the complete factual position that the applicant is working as comperer/presenter since 2003, was not communicated to the learned ASGI. The contention of the respondents that the process of regularization in terms of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi has been stopped is factually incorrect as the respondents vide circular dated 05.09.2019 have prepared the scheme for regularization or irregular appointee/engagements in Prasar Bharat (All India Radio & Doordarshan) with the approval of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training and the Ministry of Law (Department of Legal Affairs). As per para (iv) of parameters for determining eligibility for regularization, mentioned in scheme dated 22.08.2019, only those candidates, who were eligible for appointment to the post as per Recruitment Rules at the time of their initial engagement would be eligible to be considered for regularization. Therefore, the respondents in considering the claim of regularization of the applicant cannot change the criterion, which has been followed by them in the past for regularization of 235 casual artists engaged like the applicant in 2015.

18. In view of the discussion foregoing, the impugned orders dated 12.07.2021 and 24.08.2021 (Annexure A-25 and A-26) are found to be passed with malice, bad in law and therefore, the same is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant on the assignment. They are further directed to consider the claim of the applicant for regularization as per the policy dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure A-22). The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms. Pending MA stands disposed of accordingly. The orders be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.