Dismissed

The Union of India v. Doordarshan Programme Professionals Association

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2021WP/15596/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's common order allowing original applications by Cameraman Grade-I of Doordarshan and directing earmarking of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer (Cameraman) vacancies and consideration of their promotion. The High Court held that under Schedule V of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990 the Union had no choice but to earmark the vacancies, and dismis

What the court decided

AI extract

The Union of India Vs Doordarshan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.15604/2019

¶9

C/W

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.15596/2019 (S-CAT)

¶11

IN WRIT PETITION NO.15604/2019

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

THE UNION OF INDIA

¶14

BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

¶16

AND BROADCASTING

¶17

SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR. R.P.ROAD NEW DELHI-110 001

¶18

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA P.T.I. BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET

¶19

NEW DELHI-110 001

¶20

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (DOORDARSHAN) PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING

¶21

CORPORATION OF INDIA DOORDARSHAN BHAVAN, COPERNICUS MARG NEW DELHI-110 001

¶22

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL DOORDARSHAN KENDRA

¶23

J.C.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 006

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI.M.VASUDEVA RAO, ADV.,)

¶26

¶27

AND:

¶28

G.SURESH

¶29

S/O LATE S GURUMURTHY AGED 55 YEARS WORKING AS CAMERAMAN GRADE-1

¶30

DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, J.C.NAGAR BANGALORE-560 006

¶31

G.BHASKARAN S/O LATE SINGRIAPPA AGED 54 YEARS, WORKING AS CAMERAMAN GRADE-1 DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, J.C.NAGAR

¶32

BANGALORE-560 006

¶33

USHA KINI W/O. KULAI VASANTH KINI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PROGRAMME) (ADHOC) O/O DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, J.C.NAGAR BANGALORE-560 006

¶34

NIRMALA YALIGAR W/O.CHANDRASHEKAR YALIGAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PROGRAMME) (ADHOC) O/O DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, J.C.NAGAR BANGALORE-560 006

¶35

UDAYADRI S/O.RAJATADRI

¶36

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶37

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PROGRAMME) (ADHOC) O/O COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE ALL INDIA RADIO, BANGALORE-560 001

¶38

G.K.RAVEENDRA KUMAR S/O.G.S.KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PROGRAMME) (ADHOC) O/O. ALL INDIA RADIO COMPLEX RAJBHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

¶39

DR.D.PADMAVATHI D/O.SRI.DR.S.R.KRISHNA MURTHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶40

¶41

ASST. DIRECTOR (P) (ADHOC) O/O. ALL INDIA RADIO COMPLEX RAJBHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

¶42

DR.N.RAGHU D/O.SRI.S.NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ASST. DIRECTOR (P) (ADHOC) O/O ALL INDIA RADIO COMPLEX RAJBHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

¶43

… RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI.A.R.HOLLA, ADV., FOR C/R1-2 SRI M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADV. FOR RESPONDENTS-4, 7 AND 8 R-3, R-5 AND R-6 ARE SERVED)

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 10.01.2019 IN O.A.NO.170/1456-1457/2018 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶46

IN WRIT PETITION NO.15596/2019

¶47

BETWEEN:

¶48

THE UNION OF INDIA

¶49

BY ITS SECRETARY

¶50

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR. R.P.ROAD NEW DELHI-110 001

¶51

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PRASAD BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA P.T.I. BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110 001

¶52

¶53

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (DOORDARSHAN) PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA DOORDARSHAN BHAVAN, COPERNICUS MARG NEW DELHI-110 001 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL DOORDARSHAN KENDRA J.C.NAGAR BANGALORE-560 006 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.M.VASUDEVA RAO, ADV.,) AND: 1. DOORDARSHAN PROGRAMME PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION (DDPA) REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI.P.J.FRANCIS, S/O LATE P.V.JOSEPH AGED 56 YEARS WORKING AS CAMERAMAN GRADE-I DOORDARSHAN KENDRA P.B.MARG, WORLI MUMBAI-400 030 2. I.S.RAMAKRISHNA S/O.LATE L.S.SHANKAR JOIS AGED 57 YEARS, WORKING AS CAMERAMAN GRADE-1 DOORDARSHAN KENDRA J.C.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 006 RESIDING AT NO.4, 3^RD CROSS “A” SECTOR, AMRUTHANAGAR SAHAKARANAGARA POST BANGALORE-560 092

¶54

USHA KINI W/O. KULAI VASANTH KINI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PROGRAMME) (ADHOC) O/O DOORDARSHAN KENDRA J.C.NAGAR BANGALORE-560 006

¶55

¶56

NIRMALA YALIGAR W/O.CHANDRASHEKAR YALIGAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PROGRAMME) (ADHOC) O/O DOORDARSHAN KENDRA J.C.NAGAR BANGALORE-560 006

¶57

UDAYADRI

¶58

S/O.RAJATADRI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PROGRAMME) (ADHOC) O/O COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE ALL INDIA RADIO

¶59

BANGALORE-560 001

¶60

G.K.RAVEENDRA KUMAR S/O.G.S.KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PROGRAMME) (ADHOC) O/O. ALL INDIA RADIO COMPLEX RAJBHAVAN ROAD

¶61

BANGALORE-560 001

¶62

DR.D.PADMAVATHI

¶63

D/O.SRI.DR.S.R.KRISHNA MURTHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ASST. DIRECTOR (P) (ADHOC) O/O. ALL INDIA RADIO COMPLEX RAJBHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

¶64

DR.N.RAGHU D/O.SRI.S.NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ASST. DIRECTOR (P) (ADHOC) O/O ALL INDIA RADIO COMPLEX RAJBHAVAN ROAD

¶65

BANGALORE-560 001

¶66

… RESPONDENTS

¶67

(BY SRI.A.R.HOLLA, ADV., FOR C/R1-2 SRI.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADV. FOR R4, 7 & 8 RESPONDENTS-3, 5 AND 6 ARE SERVED)

¶68

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227

¶69

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 10.01.2019 IN

¶70

¶71

O.A.NO.170/1719/2018 AND PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶72

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy

¶75

involved in the two cases, they were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed.

¶76

Both petitions are arising out of the impugned order dated 10.01.2019 passed in O.A.No.170/01456-01457/2018 and O.A.No.170/1719/2018 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’), Bangalore Bench, Bangalore.

¶77

The facts of WP No.15604/2019 are narrated as under:

¶78

Respondents-1 and 2 who were on the post of Cameraman Grade-I in Doordarshan have filed Original Application praying for issuance of an appropriate order directing the respondent-Union of India to consider their case for promotion to the post of Junior Time Scale (JTS) of IB(P)S. The following reliefs were sought in the Original Application, which read as under:

¶79

¶80

(i) To restrain the respondents from promoting the ‘Programme Executives’ to fill up the posts of JTS of IB(P)S without including the Cameraman Grade-I in pursuance of the order dated 24.08.2018, issued by the respondent No.3.

¶81

(ii) Direct the respondents to ascertain the vacancies in the cadre of Junior Time Scale of IB(P)S and the vacancies to be earmarked for Cameraman Grade-I for encadrement as per the Recruitment Rules of 1990 and consider the applicants for JTS Post.

¶82

Respondents-1 and 2 appointed as Cameraman

¶83

Grade-II initially were promoted to the post of Cameraman Grade-I on 16.07.2012 and 21.06.2017 respectively, in Doordarshan. They had possessed the qualification of Diploma in Cinematography. Based on the recommendation of the 5^th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the Government vide order dated 06.02.1998 had revised the scale of pay for Cameraman Grade-I from Rs.2375-3500 (Group ‘B’) to Rs.8000-13500 (Group ‘A’). It was also decided to encadre the Cameraman Grade-I in Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service (for short ‘IB(P)S)’) at Junior Time Scale level. The Director General (Doordarshan) Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India has been advised to take into account the recommendations of

¶84

¶85

the 5^th CPC while framing regulations for the programme service of Prasar Bharati vide order dated 20.09.2000. The dispute raised before the Tribunal is in respect of consideration of promotion of Cameraman Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 of two years of regular service for the purpose of promotion to the JTS specially earmarked for Programme Officer in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000.

¶86

The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents have not disputed the applicability of the Recruitment Rules governing the field.

¶87

Respondents-1 and 2 herein were the applicants before the Tribunal. Their grievance before the Tribunal was that they were not considered for promotion to the post of Programme Officer (Cameraman) keeping in view the Recruitment Rules. It was argued on behalf of the applicants that in a similarly situated case, the CAT, Principal Bench in OA No.1176/2013 has directed the Union of India, keeping in view the Recruitment Rules, to earmark the vacancies of Programme Officer (Cameraman) from among the Cameraman Grade-I with two years regular service for their inclusion in feeder category for the post of JTS Programme Officer. Respondents-1 and 2

¶88

¶89

have also stated before the Tribunal that despite there being a direction of the CAT by its order dated 08.07.2015, the Union of India has passed an order on 30.11.2015 holding that earmarking of the vacancies of Programme Officer (Cameraman) from among the Cameraman Grade-I with two years regular service for their inclusion in feeder category for the post of JTS under IBPS is not feasible and encadrement of the applicants into IBPS cannot be acceded to. Being aggrieved, the applicants therein approached the CAT, Principal Bench, filed a contempt proceedings i.e., CP No.636/2015 and the CAT, Principal Bench, vide order dated 01.12.2015 has disapproved the stand taken by the Union of India and granted liberty to reconsider the matter in the light of the Recruitment Rules as well as the order of the Tribunal. The Union of India, being aggrieved, preferred a writ petition before the Delhi High Court in W.P.No.(C) 670/2016. The Delhi High Court disposed of the said writ petition with a liberty to the employees to challenge the order passed by the CAT, Principal Bench, dated 30.11.2015.

¶90

The applicants’ contention before the Tribunal is that in spite of there being a provision under the Recruitment Rules, their case has not been considered for promotion even

¶91

¶92

though they were working as Cameraman (Grade I) with two years of regular service.

¶93

The respondent-Union of India did file a reply before the Tribunal however stated that eligibility list of various categories of officers mentioned in Col.4 of Sr.No.5 in Schedule V shall be prepared on the basis of their date of appointment on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 subject to the condition that the inter-se seniority in their respective cadres shall be maintained. It was further stated that Cameraman Grade-I was in the grade of pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 (at the time of notification of IBPS Rules) and the same was upgraded to Rs.2200-4000/- and the IBPS Rules do not intend to make Cameraman (Grade-I) as the feeder cadre of JTS Programme Officer post. It was further contended that Schedule VII Note (ii) below the table of IBPS Rules mentions that the posts of Video Executive will maintain their separate entry and will be filled from the respective feeder grade until they are merged at the stage of Rs.3,700-5000/- in Junior Administrative Grade (JAG). The respondents took a stand that the Video Executives are altogether different from Cameraman. Under the provisions of IBPS Rules, the posts of Video Executives together with its feeder cadre Cameraman (Grade I) continue to function as

¶94

¶95

separate category and the posts of Video Executives, Cameraman Grade-I and Cameraman Grade-II continued to be governed by the Doordarshan Programme (Technical Camera) Group ‘A' and Group B Recruitment Rules 1987, notified on 12.10.1987.

¶96

The Tribunal, after hearing the parties at length, allowed the Original Applications. Paragraphs-8 to 10 of the order reads as under:

¶97

8. “We have gone through the main contentions of the applicants and reply of the respondents in detail. The main relief sought by the applicants is for ascertaining the vacancies in the cadre of Junior Time Scale (JTS) of IB(P)S and the vacancies to be earmarked for Cameraman Grade-I as per the recruitment rules of 1990 so as to consider them for the JTS level posts and to restrain the respondents from promoting the Programme Executives to fill up the posts of JTS of IB(P)S without including the Cameraman Grade-I. The issue has been comprehensively dealt with by the Principal Bench of CAT in OA.No.1895/2016 vide order dtd.25.09.2018. The details of the issue at stake are succinctly reproduced in the order of the Hon’ble Principal Bench of CAT which we reproduce below:

¶98

“The applicants held the post of Cameraman Grade-I in Doordarshan. They approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1176/2013 with a prayer to direct the respondents to implement the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 in true spirit, in respect of the post of Cameraman Grade-I, to re-designate the post of Cameraman Grade-I as Programme Officer and to include them in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service. Their contention was that the post of Cameraman Grade-I carried the

¶99

¶100

pay scale of Rs.2200-4000, which is the same, as that of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer of the Programme Production Cadre of the IB (P) Service and there was no justification for not merging the post of Cameraman Grade-I, into that cadre. Their further plea was that under the service rules for promotion to the post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer, the Cameraman Grade-I with two years of service is treated as one of the feeder categories but, there was no opportunity for them on account of not earmarking vacancies for their cadre.

¶101

2. The O.A was disposed of on 08.07.2015 with a direction to reconsider the entire issue and to earmark the vacancies of Programme Officers (Cameraman) for the Cameraman Grade-I with two years regular service and to consider the cases of the applicants with others; and to extend the consequential benefits.

¶102

3. The respondents passed a detailed speaking order dated 30.11.2015 refusing to accede to the request of the applicants. A Contempt Petition was filed and it was closed leaving it open to the applicants to challenge the said speaking order. Hence this O.A.

¶103

4. The applicants contend that once there is a specific direction to earmark posts of Programme Officer (Cameraman) for Cameraman Grade-I, there was absolutely no basis for refusing to accede to the request of the applicants through the speaking order.

¶104

5. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit and other supporting documents. According to them, Cameraman Grade-I happens to be a feeder category for the post of Video Executive and question of its being treated as part of the Indian Broadcasting Programme Service does not arise. It is also stated that over a period,

¶105

¶106

several developments have taken place on account of which, the necessity to earmark posts of Programme Officers in favour of Cameraman Grade-I ceases to exist. Other contentions of the applicants are also dealt with. 6. Heard Mr. S. S. Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. G. S. Virk, learned counsel for respondents.

¶107

7. The operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal in the O.A reads as under :-

¶108

“10. We, therefore, dispose of this OA with a direction to the respondents-Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to re-consider the matter in the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Recruitment Rules and to first of all earmark the vacancies of Programme Officer (Cameraman) from among the Cameraman Grade-I with two years regular service for their inclusion in feeder category for post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer under the IB(P) S. If the applicants are found eligible, they shall be given the consequential benefits. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶109

8. In compliance to this, a speaking order dated 30.11.2015 was passed. It runs into several pages. Para 16 thereof indicates the conclusion arrived at by the respondents, and reads as under :-

¶110

“Now, therefore in compliance of the order dated 08.07.2015 of Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the instant case, the matter has been reconsidered in consultation with Prasar Bharti and

¶111

¶112

the fact that Schedule-VII of IBPS Rules providing that the posts of Video Executive will maintain their separate entity and will be filed up from the respective feeder grade (i.e Cameraman Grade-I) until they are merged at the stage of 37005000 (i.e JAG level IBPS) is being followed in letter and spirit and taking into consideration the other facts mentioned above, it has been decided that earmarking of the vacancies of Programme Officer (Cameraman) from among the Cameraman Grade-I with 2 years regular service is not feasible. It has also been decided that the request of the applicants for redesignating the posts of Cameraman Grade-I as Programme Officer and encadrement of applicants into IBPS cannot be acceded to.”

¶113

9. To understand the entire scenario, it is necessary to refer to certain basic facts. The Indian Broadcasting (P) Service is a separate cadre by itself and it comprises of as many as five Grades in all, which are as under :-

¶114

*Sl.* *No.*	*Grade*	*All* *India* *Radio*	*Door* *dars* *han*	*Scale of Pay*
1	Senior Administrative Grade Deputy Director General (Management)	10	11	Rs.5900-200- 6700
2	Junior Administrative Grade (Selection Grade) Senior Director	-		- Rs.4500-150- 5700
3	Junior Administrative Grade Director/Controller	44	15	Rs.3700-125- 4700-150- 5000
4	Senior Time Scale Deputy/Deputy Controller	130	32	Rs.3000-100- 3500-125-4500
5	Junior Time Scale Programme Officer	144	37	Rs.2200-75- 2800-EB-100- 4000
	Total	328	95

¶115

¶116

10.There is a separate cadre known as the Doordarshan Programme (Technical - Camera) Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’, under the Recruitment Rules, 1987. The post of Video Executive is at the top and the feeder category for that is Cameraman Grade-I. The other posts such as Cameraman Grade-I occur down below.

¶117

11.In the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules also, a provision is made for promotion of Cameraman Grade-I to a post which is equivalent to Junior Time Scale Programme Officer. This is evident from para 5 of Schedule V of these rules, which reads:-

¶118

5	Junior Time Scale Programme Officer Rs.2200-75-2800- EB-100-4000	50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment in accordance with sub rule 2 of rule 7	The following categories of staff with three years regular service in the grade will be eligible 1.Producer Selection Grade) 2.Producer 3.Producer Grade II 4.Translator 5.Editor 6.Editor (Scripts) 7.Reference Officer Like wise cameraman Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.2375- 3500 with two years service will be eligible against the vacancies specifically earmarked for programme officer (Cameraman)

¶119

12.From this, it becomes clear that the Cameraman Grade-I is made as Feeder Category for the post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer on the one hand and Video Executive on the other, which occur two different services. The applicants made substantial efforts to get themselves equated to the post of Programme Officer with the pay scale of 2200-4000/-, did not fructify on account of the fact that method of selection and other attributes of the two posts are totally different. Similar prayer made in O.A. No.1248/2001 was declined by the Tribunal vide order dated

¶120

¶121

27.06.2003. WP (C) No. 19717/2004 preferred against the Tribunal’s aforementioned order was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 28.03.2008.

¶122

13.The only question, therefore, which remains to be decided, is as to whether the applicants were entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Programme Officer (Cameraman), as per Schedule V of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules. The speaking order proceeded on the lines, which are inappropriate, obviously because the prayer of the applicants was totally different from the one that was canvassed before this Tribunal. They want straightaway to be equated to the post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer. Once it is not feasible, the respondents are justified in declining to accede to the request of the applicants. The respondents made a specific mention to the orders referred to above and passed a speaking order.

¶123

14.However, the aspect of the enforcement of para 5 of the Schedule V of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules was not addressed. Incase the post of Programme Officer (Cameraman) has not been created, the reasons as to why the provision of promotion to the post still exists, need to be mentioned. On the other hand, if the post has become redundant, even that needs to be mentioned.

¶124

15.We, therefore, dispose of the O.A and direct the respondents to deal with the only aspect namely the entitlement of the applicants to be considered for the post of Programme Officer (Cameraman) in the light of para 5 of the Schedule V of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules. This exercise shall be completed within a

¶125

¶126

period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

¶127

9. With regard to the exercise now undertaken by Prasar Bharati as atAnnexure-A9, for promotion to the post of JTS of IB(P)S against the vacancies from 2000-2001 to 2017-2018, the respondent organisation intends only to consider Programme Executives with 3 years of regular service and the applicants in this OA are not considered for this exercise. As already noted, the Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench has directed the respondents to deal with the entitlement of the applicants namely Cameraman Grade-I to be considered for the post of Programme Officer (Cameraman) in the light of para-5 of Schedule V of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules. The said Rules do have a provision for earmarking of vacancies specifically for Programme Officer (Cameraman). It is to be noted that the JTS Programme Officer vacancies to be filled up as per Annexure-A9 have the same pay scale which the Cameraman Grade-I have already been given. Therefore, while considering the promotional aspects of Programme Executives who are in Group-B and in a pay scale one level below that of Cameraman Grade-I, it defies logic as to why the respondents cannot earmark certain posts for the Cameraman Grade-I as already provided in IB(P)S Rules 1990 which admittedly are still in existence. After all the litigations, the respondents would now claim in their reply in para11 that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is in the process of carrying out amendments in IB(P)S Rules1990 by removing the clauses of the recruitment rules that have become redundant (including those related to Cameraman). The main plea of the respondents has all along been that the Cameraman Grade-I did not have any right for automatic encadrement of IB(P)S Rules since they are already a feeder category to the posts of Video Executives and along with Senior Time Scale employees on the Programme side, they will also be merged with the same at the level of Junior Administrative Grade of IB(P)S. This does not mean that the applicants are not eligible for the vacancies of JTS Programme Officers based on the number of vacancies earmarked for them as already provided in the service rules. In fact, contrary to the respondents’ claim, the said rules in note-(iii) of Schedule-VII specifically state that the

¶128

¶129

number of posts of Cameraman to be included in the Junior Time Scale of Programme Productions Cadres of Doordarshan will be decided separately. Therefore, the claim of the respondents in para-5 of their reply that since Cameraman Grade-I have the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 (at the time of notification of IBPS Rules), IBPS Rules do not intend to make Cameraman Grade-I as the feeder cadre for Junior Time Scale Programme Officer posts cannot be accepted since the request of the applicants is for earmarking certain posts in the JTS Programme Officer level for Cameraman Grade-I and nowhere has any request been made for considering them as feeder categories since they already are in that pay scale level. All along, the Cameraman Grade-I have been considered to be one of the categories of the staff eligible to be entered into the IB(P)S and any amendment to the rules which the respondents are contemplating can have only prospective effect and not retrospective effect as has been held in a number of cases.

¶130

10.The respondents are therefore directed to consider the order of the Hon’ble Principal Bench of CAT in OA.No.1895/2016 (supra) and take appropriate action for the purpose of earmarking certain vacancies in the JTS of IB(P) S rules, encadre them in the JTS and give them an opportunity as has been given to the Programme Executives who are one level below them. We do understand that the respondents’ organisation has every right to take a policy decision in this regard but their arguments for denying the case of the applicants are not sustainable as the relief sought for by the applicants is clearly provided in the rules which are currently applicable. The OA is therefore, allowed. The respondents are also directed to proceed with the process initiated as per Annexure-A9 only after implementation of the above orders. No costs.

¶131

This Court has carefully gone through the

¶132

arguments canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners-

¶133

Union of India as well as learned counsel for the respondents

¶134

¶135

and has also gone through the judgment delivered by the Tribunal.

¶136

The basic question involved in the present case is, whether respondents-1 and 2 are entitled to be considered for promotion as per the Recruitment Rules, 1990, having requisite experience to the JTS to IB(P)S. The relevant Recruitment Rules are on record as ‘Annexure-D’. Schedule V of the

¶137

Recruitment Rules reads as under:

¶138

Metho grade cadre	d of recruitment fil for appointment o of the Indian Broad	SCHED ed of promotion and f officers on promotio casting (programme) s	_ULE-V _ minimum qualifying service in the next lower n to duty posts in the programme production ervice
Sl. No.	Grade	Method of recruitment	Field of selection and the minimum qualifying service
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
1	Senior Administrative Grade Deputy Director (Production) Rs.5900-6700	By promotion by selection	Officers with 8 years regular service in the Junior Administrative Grade (including non- functional selection grade) or with 17 years’ regular service in Group ‘A’ post out of which at least 4 years’ regular should be in junior Administrative grade.
2	Junior Administrative Grade (Selection Grade) Director (Production) Rs.4500-5700	By appointment on the basis of seniority based on suitability taking into account the overall performance experience and other related matters.	Officers in the Junior administrative Grade (Director) who have entered the 14^thyear of group A service on the 1^stJuly of the year with reference to the year of examination or initial recruitment to junior time scale group ‘A’. Note: The Junior Administrative Grade Offices who entered into the service other than by direct recruitment to junior time scale grade shall also be considered provided they are senior to the junior most officer who has become eligible for consideration to Junior Administrative Grade (Selection Grade)
3	Junior Administrative Grade Chief Producer Rs.3700-5000	By promotion by selection	Officers in the senior time scale with five years of regular service in the grade in the medium in which the vacancy has arisen.
4	Senior Time Scale Executive Producer Rs.3000-4500	By promotion on seniority cum fitness basis	Officers in Junior time scale with five years regular service in the grade in the medium in which the vacancy has arisen.

¶139

¶140

5	Junior Time Scale Programme Officer Rs.2200- 75-2800-EB- 100-4000	50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment in accordance with sub rule 2 of rule 7	The following categories of staff with three years regular service in the grade will be eligible 1. Producer (Selection Grade) 2. Producer 3. Producer Grade II 4. Translator 5. Editor 6. Editor (Scripts) 7. Reference Officer Like wise cameraman Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 with two years service will be eligible against the vacancies specifically earmarked for programme officer (Cameraman)

¶141

The aforesaid Schedule does have a provision for

¶142

promotion of Cameraman (Grade-I) with two years of service for promotion to the post of JTS Programme Officer. However,

¶143

the vacancies are to be earmarked for the same purpose. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Union of India has initiated the process of promotion to the post of JTS of IB(P)S against the vacancies from the year 2000-2001 to 2017-2018 ignoring the claim of Cameraman (Grade I) for encadrement in IB(P)S. Under the Service Rules for promotion to the post of JTS Programme Officer, the Cameraman Grade (I) with two years of service is treated as one of the feeder categories and IB(P)S Rules 1990 are still in vogue.

¶144

This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners–Union of India does not have choice except to earmark the vacancies to promote Cameraman(Grade I) to the JTS as provided under the Rules governing the field. The

¶145

¶146

respondents-1 and 2 and other Cameraman (Grade I) who fall under Schedule V of IB(P)S Rules in S.No.5 under Column No.4 are certainly entitled to be considered for promotion to JTS Programme Officer who are having two years service against the earmarked vacancies.

¶147

Learned counsel for the respondents-1 and 2 has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. E.Krishna Rao & Ors. etc., reported in All India Services Law Journal 2019(1) page 25 and his contention is that once respondents-1 and 2 have been treated as Government servants they are entitled for the benefit of government employees and there cannot be any discrimination.

¶148

This Court has carefully gone through the judgment relied upon by the respondents. It is a case relating to TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the respondents therein were declared as Government servants, it would be unfair and inequitable to deny them all the benefits, including pay scales and other conditions of service applicable to posts in the equivalent pay scale.

¶149

¶150

In the present case also, the petitioners have been treated as government servants and they are governed by the recruitment rules. It is nobody’s case that they are not governed by the IB(P)S Rules, 1990. Therefore, the question of denying them the benefit of the statutory provisions as contained under the Rules, 1990 does not arise.

¶151

Resultantly, as the respondents-1 and 2 are entitled for the benefit flowing out of statutory Recruitment Rules and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as the Tribunal has simply directed the Union of India to take appropriate action for the purpose of earmarking certain vacancies in the JTS of IB(P)S Rules and to consider the case of eligible cameraman (Grade-I) for promotion. Resultantly, the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.

¶152

Sd/JUDGE

¶153

The Union of India v. Doordarshan Programme Professionals Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Union of India v. Doordarshan Programme Professionals Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr K I Venkatesh Vs Income Tax Officer

M/S Mfar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Additional Commissioner of commercial taxes zone-ii

M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer

Sri G K Dattatreya Vs Sri R K Mandre

The Union of India Vs G. Suresh

Yasmin Begam Walikar Vs Union of India