Anil Kumar Joshi vs Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 67 HP

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                             SHIMLA

                                                          CWP No. 2957 of 2020




                                                                                 .
                                                          Decided on: 2.1.2021





    Anil Kumar Joshi                                                                  Petitioner.





                                                 Versus
    Union of India and others                                                       Respondents.
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.




    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

                                                       Yes.
    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the petitioner:                          Mr. J.L Bhardwaj, Advocate.

    For the respondents:                          Mr. Rajesh Kumar, ASGI.
                                                  (Through video conferencing).



    Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)

The writ petitioner has, through the instant writ petition,

claimed a rendition, of, a mandamus, upon, the respondents, for,

assigning him, the work of anchoring/compering, the, apposite

programs, hence, broadcast over Doordarshan.

2. A perusal of Annexure P-2, discloses that the petitioner is

since 2003, compering and anchoring, the, apposite programs, hence

broadcast through, the, aegis of the respondents. Further more, it also

becomes echoed therein that, in contemporaneity to his induction, in,

the afore capacity, under the respondents, his performance became

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

...2...

assessed by the program officials concerned, (i) and, the apt sequel

.

thereof, is that, the respondents, may not, at this stage, be fully

facilitated to impugn, the, proficiency, and, skill of the writ petitioner,

in, his performing, the, assignments, of, anchoring/compering, the,

apposite programs hence broadcast through, their aegis.

3. Be that as it may, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, upon,

becoming beset with the purported exploitative measures, adopted by

the respondents, and, arising from want of regulations, guidelines and

procedures, for rather regulating the inductions, of, comperes or

anchors, of the apposite programs, telecast or broadcast, through the

aegis, of, the respondents, became constrained, to, direct the

respondents, to, frame requisite guidelines, rules and regulations, for,

abating the exploitative indulgences, as, made by the respondents, in,

assigning works of anchoring/presenting/compering, of, the apposite

programs, hence broadcast or telecast, through their aegis.

4. In pursuance to the directions made, by, a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court, upon, CWP No. 3675 of 2015 titled as Owais

Khan versus Prasar Bharti and another, guidelines occurring in

Annexure R-3 became formulated. The verdict (supra) has not been

contended nor stated to be dislodged, by either the LPA Bench of this

...3...

Court, nor, obviously by the Hon'ble Apex Court, whereupon it

.

acquires conclusive and binding effect.

5. Moreover, dehors the afore, even if guidelines, policy(ies)

hence appertaining to the lis at hand, became formulated, through a

direction being made, through a conclusive and binding verdict

(supra), recorded by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, yet, the

learned counsel for the writ petitioner, cannot become fettered, to,

challenge the vires thereof. However, there is no averment, cast in the

writ petition wherethrough any challenge, to, the vires of Annexure R-

3, has been made. The solitary submission, addressed before this

Court, by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, for ensuring, the

continuity in service of the petitioner, is anchored upon Annexure P-

20, wherein a prescription, is, made, for regularization of the service

of those anchors, and, presenters, of, programs concerned, whose

induction(s) becomes made prior to its becoming formulated.

However, since the afore Annexure, has been conjointly submitted to

be rescinded, and also when the guidelines existing in Annexure R-3,

are formulated in pursuance, to, a conclusive and binding verdict

(supra) recorded, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, thereupon the

claim for regularization, of, the writ petitioner, as, presenter and

...4...

anchor or compere, of, programs concerned, becomes completely

.

rudderless.

6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, at this stage,

makes, an, onslaught to the prescription occurring in Annexure R-3, in

as much as, the inductions are enjoined to be made, or, the enlistments

to be made, hence of, the aspirants concerned, as, anchors/comperes

or presenters, of, the programs concerned, rather numbering being

between 21 and 35, (i) and, whereupon he submits, that, his holistic

proficiency, in the afore assignment, as, disclosed by Annnexure P-22,

becoming undermined, through barring prescription(s), of, an age bar

becoming cast therein, and, whereupon(s) his legitimate expectations,

for, becoming assigned, the, espoused work/assignment also becomes

untenably undermined.

7. Even if the afore submission addressed, before this Court,

by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, also becomes maimed or

deadened, given, the respondents, as, unfolded by Annexure P-21,

inviting the petitioner, to, participate in the rescreening test, however

he omitted to do so. The afore omission is yet argued by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, to, be legally valid, as his initial valid

enlistment occurred in the year 2003, whereupon, the respondents

...5...

become bereft, of, any apt legal empowerment, to, request him to

.

reappear, for, a re-screening test. However, as, aforestated, the afore

submission falters, as, even if the writ petitioner, became initially

inducted, though the embarkings by the respondents, of, the processes

thereat prevalent, and, also when his induction, occur(s) in the year

2003, yet whereas, with verdict (supra) becoming pronounced in the

year 2019, hence subsequent thereto, and, when, in pursuance

whereof, Annexure R-3 became formulated, thereupon, completest

adherence(s) by the respondents, and, by the writ petitioner, vis-a-vis,

the mandate(s) enshrined therein, was both imperative, and,

justifiable.

8. Reiteratedly, a breach becomes visited by the petitioner,

vis-a-vis, the mandate borne, in, Annexure R-3, and, also despite

relaxations in age becoming granted, to him, the petitioner untenably

omitted to participate in the re-screening test.

9. Even if, for all the aforestated reasons, the writ petitioner,

does not have any legal claim, however, for ensuring satiation being

meted to the pristine concept of justice, moreso, when his induction

thereinonto was made, by the then prevalent selection committee, and,

also when his performance, is not reflected to be unsatisfactory, (i)

...6...

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 re-

afforded 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

...7...

programs 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.

11. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed

of, alongwith all pending applications.

( Sureshwar Thakur), Judge.

2nd January, 2021. ( Chander Bhusan Barowalia ), (priti) Judge.