MANIJA K G vs PRASAR BHARTI on 30 October 2026

O R D E R

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

The applicants who are Casual News Producers under the respondent Prasar Bharathi challenges Annexure A2 notification dated 8.3.2024 inviting applications for filling up 3 posts of Broadcast Executives in Prasar Bharathi, Doordarshan News, on full time contract basis.

2. Applicants claim that they are in the approved panel of Casual News Producers since 2018 and now officiating as Bullet News Producers at Regional New Unit (RNU), Doordarshan Kendra, Thiruvananthapuram. They possess professional diploma in Journalism or Mass Communication. They were selected pursuant to a public notification dated 5/2018, for creating a panel of Casual News Producers at Regional News Unit, Doordarshan Kendra, Thiruvananthapuram. The notification did not specify the tenure of the panel. The applicants were selected after course of interview of shortlisted candidates and they have been continuing since 2018 without break of a single day.

3. The essential duties and functions of the Casual News Producers is news based programme production or news live with capacity for on panel operation for live production. The live production of entire news broadcasting of both DD News (TV News) and Akashwani (Radio News) through Regional News Unit is done by the applicants. Each of them is given a maximum 7 duties in a month and paid monthly at the rate of Rs. 1,875/- per duty.

4. According to the applicants, though there are sufficient work to give more duties to applicants, it is being restricted to 7 duties in a month. The excess duties are allegedly carried out by the permanent staff in other categories by re-deployment. It is further claimed that applicants are not going for any other work and their entire livelihood depends on the income from the above job. Though they were engaged as Casual News Producers they were assigned with the work of Programme Assistant. Hence, they lodged a complaint and Annexure A1 order was issued on 14.8.2023, by which they were assigned the role as Bulletin News Producers.

5. While so, separate notifications inviting applications for engagement of different categories at Doordarshan Kendra, Thiruvananthapuram, including filling up of 3 posts of Broadcast Executives with the duty as Programme Production, with capacity for on panel operation for live production was issued. Annexure A2 is the said notification. Applicants 1 to 5 being eligible responded to Annexure A2. The application of the 5th applicant was rejected, since he did not qualify the age criteria. E-admit card issued to applicants Nos. 1 to 4 were produced as Annexures A3 to A6.

6. According to the applicants, since they are engaged on contract basis, they have an indefeasible right to continue till permanent staff is being appointed. They being contract employees cannot be substituted by another set of contract employees. The respondents can discharge the balance duties by increasing the number of duties of each applicant. Annexure A2 notification, calling for selection of Broadcast Executives on contract basis to substitute applicants who are on contract basis is illegal and arbitrary. The legal position is well settled that one set of contract employees cannot be substituted by another set of contract employees. Since they are engaged without a fixed tenure of service, they cannot be disengaged, to be substituted with another set of contract employees. Accordingly, the Original Application has been filed seeking the following reliefs: “i. To set aside Annexure A2 and all proceedings pursuant to thereon for selection and engagement of Broadcast Executive of 3 in number in Regional News Unit at Doordarshan Kendra, Thiruvananthapuram;

ii. To direct the respondents to allow the applicants to continue as Casual News Producers in pursuance to Annexure A1 till they being replaced by regular appointment of News Producers in Regional News Unit at Doordarshan Kendra, Thiruvananthapuram.”

7. Respondents filed a common reply statement denying the claim set up in the Original Application. It was stated that the work of Casual Producers in Regional Units was to assess the visual news materials kept before them for scrutiny of their visual clarity and fitness for telecast. They are engaged in the live production of news bulletins and also as a co-ordinator in Production Control Room. There is no written contract between Doordarshan Kendra and the applicants while they are engaged on casual basis as News Producers. The term casual denotes that the service of the applicants was of casual nature and they are engaged when the requirement arises. The practice was that whenever the service of News Producers is needed, they will be called to the Doordarshan Kendra to produce News Bulletins. However, their service is limited to maximum 7 days in a month, that too, as and when their service is required. There is no sanctioned post for News Producers or Recruitment Rules framed by the Prasar Bharati under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Causal News Producers are hired whenever they are required.

8. Applicants 1 to 5 had responded to the post of Broadcast Executive. The application of the 5th applicant was rejected as he did not qualify the age criteria. 6th applicant though has not applied, has been made a party to the OA, which is an abuse of legal process. According to the respondents, the word casual itself denotes that the applicants are needed for the service of News Producers only on casual basis and not on regular basis. The role of Casual Producers in Regional Units is that after their assignments in Doordarshan, they can do any kind of job elsewhere. In fact, the 6th applicant is a permanent Malayalam teacher in a Government aided school in Thiruvananthapuram district. He is one of the Producers in the existing casual panel. All other applicants are free to work after the working hours with Doordarshan Kendra.

9. A casual worker cannot claim for continuity of service in any cadre. In Annexure A1, it is categorically mentioned that the service of the applicant is required as and when desired. The number of assignments that the applicants get is not assured by any contract and has only an upper limit of maximum 7 days in a month.

10. The applicants were selected to be included in the panel of Casual Producers and the work was limited to the role of Post Production Assistant. Pursuant to the representation dated 18.2.2022 submitted by them to consider them in the role of Casual Producers for which they were actually included in the panel, the applicants were given assignments as Casual Producers on assignment basis. Annexure R1 is the true copy of the notice inviting applications. Annexure R2 is the representation dated 18.2.2022 submitted by the applicants.

11. Since the visual media is facing high competition and the private television channels are airing various programmes in a professional manner, Doordarshan also needs expansion on its own way in a similar manner. Hence, Prasar Bharati invited applications for engagement on contract basis as Broadcast Executive for a period of 2 years in Prasar Bharati. It has become necessary for Doordarshan to engage Broadcast Executive at Regional News Unit to expand its programme and to diversify its content. This is clear from Annexure A2 notice inviting applications.

12. The creation and deletion of the post is purely the prerogative power of the administration. Annexure A2 was issued under the new policy on contractual employment formulated by the Prasar Bharati by its order dated 18.8.2021. As per the policy, contractual engagement can be done for engaging professionals on monthly remuneration basis

subject to the criteria laid down by them. The Broadcast Executives to be appointed will be engaged full time with production of news related programmes. They can develop greater association and commitment to the organization. The role of Broadcast Executive as advised in Annexure A2 is similar to the work done by the applicants now. However, RNU will be looking forward for more vibrant resources who can be trained and given key role to ideate on news programs as well. Since what is now in existence is casual panel of producers who are not on contractual basis, RNU is unable to invest in the casual panel in terms of training and other skilling, as there does not exist any contractual relationship between RNU and the casual panel members. Even after the new position of Broadcast Executives are filled up the existing casual panel will still be in existence and service of casual panel persons will be used as and when required. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that one set of contract employees are replaced with another set of contract employees is wrong. The Original Application is liable to be rejected.

13. Heard both sides and examined the records.

14. After the admission of the OA, by an interim order dated 25.9.2024 it was directed that though the process of recruitment can be completed, no final order of appointment shall be issued. This interim order continued for a long time. In the meanwhile, the learned ACGSC for the respondents contended that in the light of the interim order, the respondents find it extremely difficult to manage the programmes. Hence, he sought for an early hearing. Hence, by order in MA No. 455 of 2026 filed on 12.5.2026, the OA was posted for disposal. However, on that day the applicants were absent. Hence, by order dated 11.8.2026, the interim order was vacated and the matter was posted for final hearing. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the respondents by order dated 21.8.2026 the submission of the learned ACGSC that appointments were made consequent to the vacating of the interim order was recorded, and made it clear that if any appointments are made consequent to the offer letters issued, it will be subject to the final outcome of the OA.

15. The basic contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that they being appointed on contract basis, the process of selection by Annexure A2 of Broadcast Executives is intended to substitute the applicants by another set of contract employees which is illegal. Hence, it was prayed that Annexure A2 may be set aside and all proceedings pursuant to it for selection and engagement of Broadcast Executives shall be set aside. It was also prayed that respondents may be directed to permit the continuance of the applicant till regular appointments are made in accordance with the law. It was contended that the applicants are entitled for a legitimate expectation to continue in the light of their nature of engagement. It was contended that they cannot be terminated and substituted by another set of causal employees.

16. The respondents have specifically contended that the contention of the applicants that they are contract employees is baseless. To substantiate it, the learned ACGSC referred to Annexure R1 dated 5.9.2016, the terms and conditions for appointment of the applicants. It states that it was selection of Casual Assignees. It specifically stated that Annexure R1 refers to engagement as Casual Assignees. By Annexure R3 dated 14.11.2022 there was a revision of fee structure of Casual Assignees in the Regional New Unit. It also indicates that they are called casually, whenever required subject, to a maximum of 7 assignments per month. Evidently, they are not engaged on the basis of an agreement.

Hence, the entire premise on which the applicants have set up the claim should fall. In this regard it is also pertinent to note that there is no sanctioned post for News Producers framed by Prasar Bharati nor there is any Recruitment Rule in relation to it. Hence, the contention of the applicants that they being contract employees are entitled to continue, till permanent employees are recruited cannot be sustained. Regarding the apprehension of the applicants, that they are sought to be substituted by another set of casual employees, in paragraph 11 of the reply statement it was specifically stated that even after the posts of Broadcast Executives are filled up, the existing casual panel will still be in existence and service of casual panel persons will be used as and when required. This should dispel the anxiety of the applicants that they are liable to be terminated and substituted by another set of casual employees. Hence, that grievance of the applicants cannot survive.

17. It is an admitted fact that all the applicants except applicant No. 6 had responded to Annexure A2 advertisement. Applicants Nos. 1 to 4 were called for interview. The 5th applicant was not considered, being age barred. The 6th applicant did not even respond to Annexure A2. In the above circumstances, at least applicants Nos. 1 to 5 who had responded to Annexure A2 cannot turn around and challenge Annexure A2 proceedings. It was pointed out by the learned ACGSC that applicants Nos. 1 to 4 were called for the interview. The 3rd and 4th applicants appeared and they were selected. A communication issued by the above said applicants stating that they are withdrawing from the present OA was produced by the ACGSC at the time of hearing. Hence, the applicants after having responded to Annexure A2 and 4 among them being called for interview and 2 among them selected cannot now pursue the Original Application.

18. The learned counsel further contended that the applicants were being engaged for the past 8 years and this type of ad hocism in engagement and extracting of work for a long period has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of UP & Anr. [2025 AIR (SC) 3897]. It was held therein that daily wagers therein were entitled for regularization and outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where work is inherently perennial. It was further contended that by long engagement, applicants legitimately expected that they would be regularized.

19. The learned counsel for the applicants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand [2026 (2) SC 530] wherein it was held that where employees have continued to discharge their duties on a contractual post for a considerable length of time, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that the State would at some stage recognize their long and continuous service. The bar against invocation of doctrine of legitimate expectation applies only to those temporary, contractual or casual employees whose engagement was not preceded by a proper selection process in accordance with the extant Rules.

20. Both the above decisions heavily relied on by the learned counsel for the applicants cannot apply to the facts of the case. In both the cases the employees involved were engaged on contract basis for a long period and their employment was of perennial nature. It was in such circumstances, and on that factual premise that the Supreme Court held that the appellants therein were entitled for regularization and that they have a legitimate expectation that the Government will recognize their services. In the case at hand the situation is totally different. The applicants were engaged on casual basis. They were called as and when situation arose subject to the only limit of 7 assignments per month. It was not a contract employment nor of perennial nature. Hence, the above decisions cannot apply to the facts of the case.

21. In the light of the specific assertion that the applicants will be continued to be utilized, clearly indicates that the applicants have no cause of action. In the light of the above facts, the Original Application fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

(V. RAMA MATHEW)

(JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

“SA”

Original Application No. 180/00494/2024

APPLICANTS’ ANNEXURES Annexure A1: True copy of proceedings of 3rd respondent dated 14.8.2023 by which the applicants were assigned the role as Bulletin News Producer. Annexure A2: True copy of notification vide F.No. [E223147] A- 10/016/12/2024-TM & SO dated 8.3.2024 by 2nd respondent office inviting applications for three positions as Broadcast Executive on contractual basis. Annexure A3: True copy of E-admit card for interview on 11.9.2024 received by the 1st applicant from 1st respondent. Annexure A4: True copy of E-admit card for interview on 11.9.2024 received by the 2nd applicant from 1st respondent. Annexure A5: True copy of E-admit card for interview on 11.9.2024 received by the 3rd applicant from 1st respondent. Annexure A6: True copy of E-admit card for interview on 11.9.2024 received by the 4th applicant from 1st respondent. Annexure A7: True copy of offer letter dated 27.1.2025 which is issued to 3rd respondent vide No. F. No. [E223147] A- 10/016/12/2024-TM&SO. RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES

Annexure R(1): True copy of the notice inviting application dated 5.9.20165 issued by the Regional News Unit, Thiruvananthapuram.

Annexure R(2): True copy of the representation dated 18.2.20222 preferred by the applicants to Deputy Director (News), Regional News Unit, Thiruvananthapuram.

Annexure R(3): True copy of the revised fee structure of casual assignment dated 14.11.2022 in the Regional News Unit issued by the Deputy Director, Regional News Unit, DD News, Prasar Bharati, New Delhi. -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-