[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
National Council Of Education And ... vs Atul Bisht And Anr on 2 April, 2026
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4323/2026 & CM APPL. 21084/2026
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
AND TRAINING AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Saran,
Standing Counsel for NCERT with Mr.
Sidhant Sharma and Mr. Aditya Mani Saran,
Advs.
versus
ATUL BISHT AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 02.04.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 24 July 2025
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 1980/2024.
2. We have heard Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, learned Standing
Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Trivedi for the respondents.
3. OA 1980/2024, in which the impugned order has come to be
rendered, was instituted by the respondents who had participated in
the selection process for selection to the post of TV Producer Grade-
1 "the Tribunal" hereinafter
II, consequent to an advertisement dated 22 April 2023.
4. Respondent 1 belongs to the Unreserved category and
Respondent 2 belongs to Other Backward Classes. The prescribed
qualification and experience for recruitment were as under:
"A. Educational Qualification:
• A degree in Mass Communication from a recognized
University
OR
• A degree in any discipline with a diploma in Mass
Communication from a recognized University or
equivalent.
B. Experience:
• Three years' experience in the production of films or TV
programs in direction/film or TV production."
5. The respondents participated in the written examination. Their
results were declared. Consequent to declaration of results, they were
shortlisted and called for documents verification.
6. As the respondents' name did not figure in the final result
which was issued on 22 April 2024, they petitioned the Tribunal by
means of OA 1980/2024.
7. Before the Tribunal and also before this Court, the stand of the
petitioner was that the respondents did not possess the requisite
experience for recruitment to the post to which they had aspired, as
they did not have, to their credit, three years regular service in the
production of films or TV programs in direction/film or TV
production.
8. The Tribunal has dealt with this aspect and noted that the
advertisement merely required three years' experience and not three
years' experience in regular capacity.
9. Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, learned Standing Counsel for the
petitioners, reiterates, before us, the said contention and submits that
he has no other contention to make by way of challenge to the
impugned order.
10. We find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The
experience prescribed is three years' experience in the production of
films or TV programs in direction/film or TV production. The fact that
the respondents do possess the said experience is not in dispute.
11. The only contention of the petitioner is that the experience was
not after regular appointment. Inasmuch as the required experience is
not, as per the advertisement, required to be after regular appointment,
we do not find any error in the view taken by the Tribunal.
12. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned
order, which is accordingly upheld.
13. Let compliance therewith be ensured within four weeks from
today.
14. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
APRIL 2, 2026
dsn
