Nishant Ahsan (Announcer) & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

Ashish Kalia, Member (J)

The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following main reliefs:

“(a) Stay the operation of the order no. 15/3/2017-P-6 dated 21.02.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 and set-aside the same being illegal, unreasonable and unjust

(b) declare the examination dated 23.07.2017 and 27.07.2017 conducted by the respondents qua the Applicants as illegal and unjust.

(c) Issue a direction to the respondents to empanelment the applicants as casual announcers on assignment basis.”

The brief facts of the case, as stated in the OA are that the applicants were working as Assignee on transmission duty on assignment basis in Urdu service of All India Radio except applicant no. 4, who was working in Hindi service. They have been working as announcers for the last several years. They submit that the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order dated 21.02.2017 regarding audition/re-screening of assignees, which has been challenged in this Tribunal in various OAs and also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The applicants submit that they were persuaded to appear in the written test with an assurance that the said written test does not bear any effect for those who are already empanelled with All India Radio for casual assignment and working. Some of them were also informed about an audio test. However, they were not apprised of the results and since September 2017 the respondents stopped giving them further casual appointment.

Aggrieved, the applicants represented to the respondents on 26.09.2017. However, they were orally communicated that they have not been selected. Later on, the applicants came to know about a result published on 04.08.2017 and made representation under RTI dated 30.10.2017. On receiving the reply, they again represented to the respondents on 27.12.2017. Several representations were made thereafter also but the applicants submit that they have been provided incomplete information. It is submitted by the applicants that the matter has been taken up by the All India Casual Announcers and Comperers Union (AICACU) and it is pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Notices were issued to the respondents who put appearance and filed reply opposing the OA stating that the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction over the subject of the OA as the applicants are not holders of any civil posts or are not in employment of the government or a corporation under the Government. They further submit that the issuance of Vani Certificate does not bestow any right/claim for permanent engagement or make them entitled for booking on assignment in AIR. Further, they have relied upon order of this Tribunal in OA No. 2514/2017 decided on 03.11.2022, the operative para of which reads as under:

“6. This issue has already been dealt with by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Anshul Sharma & Ors. in C.W.P. No. 319/2001 and batch. The relevant portion of which is reproduced below:-

“Having regard to the rule of precedent, the Court is bound to follow a three-judge Bench decision in preference to a two-Judge Bench decision. (see S. H. Rangappa v. State of Karnataka & Anr. with Khathum Bi v. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 538 and Ram Bilas Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in 2002 AIR SCIV 93).

In any event, as noticed hereinabove, in the instant case, the scheme of regularisation has no application at all. Neither this Court nor the Tribunal can direct the respondents to frame a scheme of regularisation. Such direction, as has been discussed hereinbefore, would be contrary to the provisions contained in Article 309 of the Constitution. It is trite that the Court cannot issue a direction, which would be contrary to law as also the Constitution.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly.

These writ petitions are allowed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases, there shall be no orders as to costs.”

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in SWP No. 1742/2018 decided on 29.07.2019 in Shakeela Andrabi & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., as well as decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W. P. No. 8941/2018 in Vedavati Mohan Gokhale & Ors. Vs. Programme Executive/Head of Office Akashwani Sangli & Ors. where similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble High Courts.

Thus, keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Anshul Sharma & Ors. (supra) mentioned herein above, it is felt that this Tribunal is bound by the judgments so passed by the Hon’ble High Courts. In view of that, the present OA lacks merit. The same is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.”

After going through the above order, we are of the considered view that this issue is no more res integra. Hence, the present OA lacks merit and is dismissed in terms of order in OA No. 2514/2017 (supra). No order as to costs.