Association Of Upsc Recruited ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1199 Del

JUDGMENT

P.K. Bhasin, J

1. Rule DB. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition was taken up for final hearing.

2. This writ petition filed by the Association of Programme Officers of All India Radio and Doordarshan recruited through UPSC and one of its office bearers (petitioner no. 2) challenges the order dated 22nd January 2003 rendered in OA No. 821/2001 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi whereby the Association's plea that the Staff Artists of All India Radio and Doordarshan employed on contract basis should not be considered for promotion to the posts of Assistant Station Director (ASD) against the vacancies which occurred before 23rd October 1984 when the relevant rules were amended making them (contractual Staff Artists) also eligible for promotion as ASDs has been repelled.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

(a) At one time the Government used to engage some persons without undergoing any Selection process on a contract basis in the All India Radio and Doordarshan for production activities and those employees used to be called as Staff Artists. They were, however, not considered as Government servants.

(b) Another category of employees in All India Radio and Doordarshan used to be that of Programme Executives (who were employed for Programme Management & Programme Production). They were recruited through UPSC and so were obviously government servants. The posts of Programme Executive were Group B posts and governed by the All India Radio(Group B posts) Recruitment Rules, 1962. The programme executives were according to the petitioner Association, employed nationally for the different centres of All India Radio and Doordarshan and their jobs have been transferable.

(c) The next promotional post for the Programme Executives has been that of Asstt. Station Director and promotions to that post were governed by All India Radio(Group A posts) Recruitment Rules of 1963.

(d) On 3rd May, 1982 the Government of India decided to regularize the Staff Artists as Government employees with effect from 6th March 1982 subject to their exercising the option to that effect and clearing screening tests etc. and issued a circular to that effect on 3rd May 1982.

(e) On 23rd October 1984, the Government of India issued a notification and amended the existing Recruitment Rules of 1962 for Group B posts in All India Radio and Doordarshan. By the said notification Rule 4-A was added to the existing All India Radio (Group 'B' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1962 which provided for the procedure for appointment of the Staff Artists, who had earlier in 1982 pursuant to the circular dated 3rd May 1982 opted to become regular government servants, as regular Government employees and their seniority etc.

(f) On 23rd October 1984, the Government issued another notification also whereby the existing Rules of 1963 concerning Group A posts were also amended and Rule 4-A, as included in the Rules of 1962 for Group B post,was included in the Rules of 1963 for Group A posts also. After the amendment of the Rules in 1984 the Government conducted screening tests etc. for treating the Staff Artists who had opted in the year 1982 to become Government employees and treated the successful Staff Artists as regular Government employees with effect from 6th March 1982.

(g) In the year 1986 the Government allocated certain vacancies for the Staff Artists from 6th March, 1982 for the promotional posts of Assistant Station Director.

(h) Feeling aggrieved with what was termed as the retrospective allocation of vacancies for the Staff Artists, one lady Programme Executive Maya Israni posted in Rajasthan, and aspiring to become an Assistant Station Director, and who felt that her chances of promotion had diminished because of the allocation of vacancies for the Staff Artists from March, 1982 challenged that allocation by filing a writ petition in Rajasthan High Court.

(i) That petition was later on transferred to the Jodhpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was her grievance that no vacancies existing prior to the amendment of the Rules in 1984 could be allocated for the Staff Artists since before that they were not included in the feeder channel for the post of Assistant Station Director.

(j) That petition was allowed by Jodhpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 20th July 1987 with the following directions to the Government:

...The respondents are directed that they shall fill up such vacancies of Assistant Station Directors as had arisen prior to the coming into force of the 1984 Amendment Rules by confining the field of consideration to the Programme Executives possessing eligibility qualifications within the field of zone of consideration....

(k) Thereafter a review DPC was convened and those Staff Artists who had in the meantime been promoted were reverted back.

(l) In the year 1990 the Government promoted 135 Staff Artists, including one Ashraf Lone(respondent no. 5 herein who was engaged as a Staff Artist in 1972 and posted in Jammu & Kashmir) as Assistant Station Directors against the vacancies arising between 1984 and 1989. However, respondent no.5 wanted his service before 1984 as Staff Artist also to be counted for the purpose of seniority and eligibility for promotion as ASD as he had not been given any benefit of his service as Staff Artist before 1984. So, he filed a writ petition No. 1261/1991 titled as Mohd. Ashraf Lone v. Director, Delhi Doordarshan Kendra, in Jammu & Kashmir High Court claiming that relief besides challenging some amendments in the Recruitment Rules of 1962.

(m) The above mentioned petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 16th July 1997 by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court with the following directions while rejecting the petitioner's (Ashraf Lone) claim for counting the period of his contractual service as Staff Artist:

I call upon the respondents that they shall identify the posts of Assistant Station Director which have become available from 6th March, 1982 to ending December, 1989 in the Programme Cadre of All India Radio and Doordarshan and after identifying the same, they shall under the exercise of ratio of quota and placement of persons who shall become eligible thereto as per service rules:

Further a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to give consequential benefits to the petitioner which he derives by such placement and his date of promotion be also treated retrospectively from the date he is found due for such promotion as per his placement and being in the feeding cadre to the service of Assistant Station Director/next promotees.

(n) The SLP filed against this order of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court by the Government was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14th February, 2000.

(o) Thereafter when a review DPC was sought to be held for promotions of Programme Executives/Staff Artists against the vacancies arising between 6th March, 1982 to 31st December 1989 the petitioner no. 1, an Association of Programme Executives made a representation to the Government for not promoting any Staff Artist against the vacancies of Assistant Station Directors occurring prior to 23rd October 1984 and on getting no response from the Government filed an OA (being OA No. 2545/2000) before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi which was disposed of on 6th December 2000 with the following directions:

...In our view, ends of justice would be met by directing the respondents, more particularly, respondent no. 1, to consider the said representation expeditiously and in any event before the review DPC is convened, and pass a speaking order. We direct accordingly.

(p) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting passed an order on 14th March 2001 rejecting the representation of the petitioners for not allocating any vacancies for the posts of ASDs to the Staff Artists for the period before 23rd October 1984 when the amended Rules making them eligible for the post of ASD were framed. It was the stand of the Government that it was taking this stance pursuant to the directions of the J&K High Court in Ashraf Lone's case (supra).

(q) Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of their representation by the Government regarding the allocation of pre-amendment vacancies of ASDs to Staff Artists petitioners once again filed an OA No. 821/2001 before the Principal Bench of CAT at New Delhi. In the said OA it was pleaded that the Government had misunderstood and misinterpreted the judgment of J&K High Court in Mohd. Ashraf Lone's case (supra) and had given the quota to Staff Artists for the promotional posts of ASDs against those vacancies which had come into existence before the 1984 amendment in the Rules when Staff Artists (Producers) were for the first time also included in the feeder cadre for the posts of ASDs, namely, Programme Executives. The main prayers made in the OA were as follows:

a) Issue declaration to the effect that action of Respondents for allocating vacancies and considering the staff artists for the vacancy of the year from 1982 to 1984 for the post of Assistant Station Director is illegal and unjust arbitrary and against Govt. of India instructions as upheld by the Hon'ble J&K High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also pass an order declaring that vacancies of the Asstt. Station Directors for the year 1982 to 1984 shall be filled up only amongst the Programme Executives as per the prevalent Recruitment Rules.

b) Further direct the respondents to consider and promote only eligible candidates (i.e. Programme Executives and Staff Artists) from 23rd October, 1984 to till 1989 strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.

c) Further direct the respondents to follow the principles of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of J&K, Srinagar in case of Mohd. Asraf Lone v. Director General and Ors. SWP-1261/1991 as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also direct the respondents to rectify the seniority list of Programme Executives in accordance with service rule and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of NK Chauhan v. State of Gujarat .

d) Quash/Set aside the impugned order dated 14/03/2001.

e) To give all consequential benefits accruing there from.

f) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.

g) Award cost;

(r) The Government resisted the OA, inter-alia, on the grounds that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter since it had already been finally settled with the rejection of the Government's SLP against the judgment of J&K High Court in Ashraf Lone's case (supra) wherein the High Court only had directed the Government to allocate the vacancies of ASDs from 6th March 1982 (the date from which Staff Artists were declared as Government employees) and 31st December 1989 and so if at all the petitioners were aggrieved they should approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This petition before CAT was averred by the Government to be barred by the principle of res-judicata. It was once again reiterated by the Government that it was implementing what it was directed by the J&K High Court after Government's SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was also pleaded that as far as the judgment of Jodhpur Bench of CAT in Maya Israni's case is concerned it had failed to hold the field after the judgment of J&K High Court in Ashraf Lone's case (supra)which it was bound to follow even though it had earlier pursuant to the decision if Maya Israni's case reverted back some of the Staff Artists who had already been promoted as ASDs against the vacancies occurring even before the 1984 amendment of the relevant Rules. It was further pleaded that the Government had brought to the notice of Hon'ble Supreme Court the decision of CAT in Maya Israni's case but its SLP was still rejected and so thereafter the Government had no other choice but to follow the order of J&K High Court in Ashraf Lone's case(supra).

(s) The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dismissed the petitioners, OA by its impugned order dated 22nd January 2003 holding that the Government had taken the impugned action only after taking into consideration the impact of the judgment of Jammu & Kashmir High Court and the dismissal of its SLP against that judgment and so there was nothing wrong in the Government's order dated 14th March 2001 whereby petitioners' representation dated 19th September 2000 had been rejected regarding allocation of pre-1984 vacancies to Staff Artists for the promotional posts of ASDs.

4. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing this writ petition for a direction to the Government not to promote any Staff Artist as ASD unless he/she had completed five years regular service in the cadre of Programme Executive by following the Rules for Group A posts as amended in 1984.

5. Union of India and respondent no. 5 Ashraf Lone, in their respective counter affidavits have prayed for dismissing the writ petition. However, respondent no. 7, which was imp leaded being an Association of Staff Artists but which is now claiming to be an Association of Staff Artists as well as Programme Executives, has in its counter affidavit prayed for directing the Government to implement the decision of J&K High Court in Ashraf Lone's case (supra) in proper perspective and in consonance with the earlier decision of CAT(Jodhpur Branch) in Maya Israni's case and to re-draw the seniority lists as per the order of Jodhpur Bench of CAT.

6. No reply was filed by respondent no. 6, which is another Association of Staff Artists.

7. During the course of hearing before us also the counsel for the parties mainly reiterated whatever had been pleaded in their respective pleadings. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted as follows:

(a) Before March, 1982 the staff artists were neither considered by the Government as Government employees nor were they included in the feeder channel for the promotional post of Assistant Station Director. It was only in 1982 that the Government decided to regularize the services of Staff Artists who had been engaged on contract basis but that too was to be subject to the Staff Artists clearing certain tests and after that only they were to be considered as a part of the regular cadre of Programme Executives.

(b) The entitlement of the contractual staff artists to be considered for promotion as Assistant Station Directors came into existence only on 23rd October, 1984 when the Recruitment Rules governing the promotions to the post of Assistant Station Directors were amended by including the Staff Artists(Producers) in the feeder channel and so no Staff Artist could be considered for promotion against the vacancies of Assistant Station Directors which had come into existence before 23rd October, 1984 since those vacancies had to be governed by the then existing Rules of 1963 which did not entitle the contractual Staff Artists to be considered for promotion as Assistant Station Director.

(c) Even after 23rd October 1984, a Staff Artist was not to be straightaway considered as a regular Programme Executive and he/ she had first to be selected by UPSC and as far as their entitlement for promotion as ASDs is concerned, they were to become eligible only after completing 5 years' regular service in the grade of Programme Executive.

(d) In fact, even the J&K High Court had not held in the case of Ashraf Lone (supra) that the contractual Staff Artists should be considered for promotion against the vacancies of Assistant Station Directors occurring before 23rd October, 1984 and all that was directed in that judgment was that vacancies in the posts of Assistant Station Directors should first be identified for the period from 6th March 1982 to 31st December 1989 and then to fill them up in accordance with the service rules and the service rules, counsel contended, had obviously to be the rules in existence before 23rd October, 1984 only and not the amended rules of 1984 because the amendment in the Rules in 1984 was not carried out retrospectively.

(e) The Government was misinterpreting the judgment in Ashraf Lone's case (supra) as to mean that there was a direction to it to allocate the vacancies in the posts of Assistant Station Directors for the Staff Artists also for the pre-amendment period when in fact, neither any such direction was given nor it could be given because of the well settled legal position that vacancies existing at any particular time are to be governed by the rules existing at that time and not by the amendments made in future in those rules.

(f) By misinterpreting the judgment in Ashraf Lone's case (supra) in the aforesaid manner the respondent no. 5 herein(Ashraf Lone) had been extended illegitimate benefit of promotion as an Assistant Station Director in the year 1990 when he had not even completed the qualifying period of five years of regular service as a Programme Executive and also despite the fact that in his writ petition itself Hon'ble J&K High Court had categorically rejected his prayer for giving him the benefit of his service as a contractual Staff Artist from the date when he was engaged initially.

8. Mr. Venkatramani, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submitted as follows:

(a) That the Government had rightly implemented the judgment of J&K High Court given in the writ petition filed by respondent no. 5 and the issues involved in that matter cannot be re-agitated and adjudicated upon afresh in this fresh round of litigation because the matter stands finally settled after the rejection of the SLP of the Government against the decision of J&K High Court.

(b) Although the Government had decided to treat the contractual Staff Artists as regular Government employees with effect from 6th March 1982, which fact had been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of National Union of All India Radio and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. reported as , but the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in an earlier decision of Union of India v. M.A. Chowdhary reported as , concerning Staff Artists that all the Staff Artists were Government servants and that decision was followed again in the later judgment of National Union of All India Radio and Ors. v. Union of India wherein while referring to the Government's circular dated 3rd May 1982 (referred to already in this judgment) it was also observed that the Government was not right in not considering the contractual Staff Artists as Government servants even before the issuance of the said circular dated 3rd May 1982 which meant, according to the counsel, that Hon'ble Supreme Court treated the contractual Staff Artists also as Government servants right from their initial appointments as such.

9. The learned Counsel contended that J&K High Court, however, treated the cut off date of 6th March 1982, as provided in the Government's circular dated 3rd May, 1982 to be the date from which contractual Staff Artists would become eligible for promotion as ASDs and there was nothing wrong in that. Mr. Ashwini Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for respondent no. 7 submitted that Staff Artists who had been brought into the feeder channel for the promotional posts of Assistant Station Directors could be considered for promotion only after putting in five years' regular service in the cadre of Programme Executive and their contractual service period could not be counted because there is a basic difference between regular Government service and contractual employment and therefore, respondent no. 5 could be considered for promotion only after completion of five years' regular service as a Programme Executive (which term admittedly includes Producers/Staff Artists) which period could not commence prior to 23rd October 1984.

10. The learned Counsel, Mr. Arjun Harkauli, for the Union of India submitted that with the rejection of its SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Government was bound to comply with the directions of the J&K High Court given in the case of Ashraf Lone (supra) and the allocation of vacancies for the Staff Artists for the posts of Assistant Station Directors occurring before 23rd October 1984 was done pursuant to those directions of the J&K High Court.

11. From the fore-going narration of the factual background of this litigation between the regularly appointed Programme Executives and the Staff Artists appointed on contract basis and the pleadings of the present writ petition as well as the submissions advanced at the Bar by the learned Counsel of the parties, it appears to us that as far as the petitioners and respondent no. 7 are concerned they seek a writ of mandamus from this Court to the effect that no contractual Staff Artist should be given promotion as an Assistant Station Director against the vacancies which had occurred before 23rd October 1984 when the Recruitment Rules governing the said promotional post were amended. As far as the Union of India is concerned, although it had earlier been taking the stand that the Staff Artists who had been declared as Government servants with effect from 6th March 1982 could be considered for promotion as Assistant Station Director only after putting in five years' regular service in the grade of Programme Executive(which, as noticed already, as per the common case of the parties includes Staff Artists also) but after having failed to get the judgment of J&K High Court in Ashraf Lone's case (supra) set aside from the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has now taken the stand that it had no other option but to allocate the vacancies to the Staff Artists also for the posts of Assistant Station Directors occurring even before the amendment of Rules in 1984. The Union of India has thus accepted the view of the J & K High Court in Ashraf Lone's case (supra) which stood affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondent No. 5 who has been the beneficiary of the Government's decision to allocate the vacancies of ASDs for the Staff Artists from 6th March 1982 onwards, on the other hand, wants this Court to rule that the Staff Artists were rightly allocated those vacancies of Assistant Station Directors' posts which had occurred from 6th March 1982 onwards pursuant to the judgment of the J&K High Court in his case.

12. The root question, however, in our view, is whether this Court can now give any finding at all in respect of the eligibility of the contractual Staff Artists for their promotion to the post of Assistant Station Director against the vacancies occurring before the amendment in the relevant rules in 1984 in view of the fact that the same very question was agitated before J&K High Court in the writ petition of respondent no. 5 in which that High Court gave a specific direction to the Government to identify the posts of Assistant Station Director which had become available from 6th March 1982 onwards till December, 1989 and to fill them up from the two sources, i.e. Staff Artists who had become regular Government employees and already UPSC recruited Programme Executives as per the quota for the two sources. That judgment of the J&K High Court was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but its SLP was dismissed. The consequence of dismissal of the Government's SLP was that the opposition of the Government to the entitlement of the contractual Staff Artists for promotion as Assistant Station Directors in respect of the vacancies occurring before 23rd October 1984 stood repelled finally against it and the Government took a conscious decision thereafter to follow the view taken by the J&K High Court.

13. The date of 6th March 1982 appears to have been fixed by the J&K High Court presumably for the reason that the Government had taken a decision to regularize the services of the contractual Staff Artists from that date. The contention of the petitioners is that in spite of the fact that Government had simply decided to treat the contractual Staff Artists as Government servants with effect from 6th March 1982, vacancies for them for the promotional posts of Assistant Station Directors occurring before 23rd October 1984 when the rules were amended and which according to the petitioners were amended prospectively only, could not be allocated for the Staff Artists could have at best been urged, in our view, before the J&K High Court when the matter was pending there. It does appear to have been agitated there but disagreeing with this contention the J&K High Court went on to give a direction to the Government to allocate the vacancies of Assistant Station Directors even for the Staff Artists who had been regularized with effect from 6th March 1982.

14. In this regard the stand of the petitioners is that they are in any case not bound by the decision in the case of Ashraf Lone (supra) because they were not parties in that writ petition or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and so they had a right to file an independent petition for the redressal of their grievances. We are of the view that it cannot be believed that the petitioner association was not aware of the litigations between the two sets of employees. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the judgment of Jodhpur Bench of the CAT in Maya Israni's case which shows that a lady employee was fighting for the whole lot of Programme Executives of All India Radio and Doordarshan, namely, regular Programme Executives. In any case, even if it were to be accepted that because of the petitioners not being a party to the case of Ashraf Lone (supra) and the judgment in his case is not binding on them still the present petition before this Court, in our view, cannot succeed as the view of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir stood affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Government had also brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the decision of CAT in Maya Israni's case but the SLP filed by the Government was rejected. Therefore, Government was bound to follow the order of the J&K High Court in Ashraf Lone's case (supra). In this regard we may usefully refer to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishnachandra Mohanti and Ors. wherein also a similar situation arose as in the present case. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttak Bench had disposed of a service matter filed by one Assistant Commandant in the Orissa Military Police seeking his promotion to the Indian Police Service(IPS) which promotion he had been denied by the Government on the ground that only Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Orissa Police Force were eligible for promotion to the IPS cadre. The Government had resisted the petition before the Tribunal. Tribunal allowed that petition holding that the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Assistant Commandant of the Orissa Military Police constituted a single cadre and appropriate directions were issued to the Government for considering his case for promotion. The State of Orissa filed an SLP against the decision of the Tribunal which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After about a year of the dismissal of the SLP some police officials belonging to Orissa State Police Service filed a review application in the same matter before the Tribunal alleging that its decision was incorrect. That review application was allowed by the Tribunal and its earlier decision was reversed holding that the two cadres of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Assistant Commandant of Orissa Military Police were separate cadres from inception and Assistant Commandants(which the petitioner of that case was) were not eligible for promotion to the Indian Police Service. Against that order of the Tribunal in the review applications, appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that once a decision taken by the Tribunal is challenged before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition and that Special Leave Petition is dismissed then the judgment of the Tribunal attains finality. It was also held that if at all any other person who was not a party to that lis feels aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal he can file a separate application before the Tribunal in his own case and persuade the Tribunal either to refer the question to a larger bench or if the Tribunal prefers to follow its earlier decision then he can file an appeal and have the Tribunal's judgment set aside in appeal. In the present case, Ashraf Lone's judgment (supra) had attained finality and no reason has been shown why we should depart from it except the plea that on the relevant date the staff artists were not government employees.

15. In the case of Union of India v. M. A. Chowdhary (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following position of law:

The respondent challenged the validity of the aforesaid termination notice by writ petition filed in the High Court of Allahabad. The learned Single Judge held that having regard to the service conditions, it must be held that the respondent was holding a civil post and as such was entitled to the protection of Articles. 311(2) and 16 of the Constitution and that inasmuch as persons junior to him had been retained in service the Appointing Authority in terminating his services had violated Article 16 of the Constitution. On these grounds, the notice of termination of the respondent's service was held bad and quashed.

In appeal, the Division Bench held that in view of Clause (1) to (4) of the Agreement it is apparent that the Government in consideration of a monthly salary controls the nature and manner of work assigned to the staff artists that the Government had complete control over the respondent's work and manner and method of doing the work, which was supervised by the higher authorities that the relationship between the respondent and the appellant was clearly of a master and servant, and the respondent was, therefore, holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311(1) of the Constitution.

16. In the case of National Union of All India Radio v. Union of India (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following position of law:

10. The question of deeming the employees as Government servants from the date of the Allahabad High Court's judgment is another issue which requires examination. Connected with it would be the question of entitlement to pension. We are of the view that these are aspects which should first be initially examined by a Committee to be set up by the Government and after a definite view is taken it would be open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Court to redress the remaining grievances, if any. The matter is such that administrative scrutiny instead of judicial determination would be more helpful. We, therefore, refrain from expressing any final view. We reiterate that the order dated 25th of April, 1988, intended a draft scheme to be drawn up for consideration of the Court. The scheme as produced in the Court along with the accompanying affidavit has also been described as a draft scheme. The objections raised by the petitioners to the said scheme are available on the record. We direct that in the appropriate Ministry a High Power Committee be set up for examination of the objections with reference to the terms of the scheme and the final decision be taken by the Government within six months. The views expressed in the present decision be taken into account while dealing with the objections for purposes of finalising the scheme. Liberty is given to the aggrieved parties when final decision is taken by Government to move the Court.

17. We are bound by the aforesaid position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.A. Chowdhary's case (supra) that the post of the staff artists is a civil post. Further, in National Union of All India Radio's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the government to set up a committee in the appropriate Ministry. The respondent in the instant case had already taken a decision on 3rd May, 1982 to regularize the staff artists as Government employees with effect from 6th March, 1982. After the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1990, in National Union of All India Radio's case (supra), the Government has reiterated and has chosen to abide by its stand to regularize the staff artists as Government employees. It is not for this Court, to interfere with the decision of the Government arrived by it pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, in our view, the plea of the petitioners is unsustainable.

18. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.