Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Uma Rani Sharma vs Prasar Bharati, M/O Information And ... on 25 March, 2022
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Allahabad, this the 25th day of March, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member-A
Original Application No. 476 of 2017
Uma Rani Sharma D/o Sri Indra Pal Sharma aged about 46 years
R/o House No. 1/115 Laxmanpuri Burnd, District Bulandshahar
(U.P.).
.......Applicant.
By Advocate - Shri Kaushlesh Pratap Singh.
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of
Communication, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. Prasar Bharti, All India Radio, New Delhi through News
Service Division, New Delhi through its Director General
(News).
3. Director General (News) Department of News Services
(Samachar Sewa Prabhag) All India Radio (Akashvani)
Sansad Marg, New Delhi, 110001.
4. Prasar Bharti All India Radio, Lucknow through its Director.
...... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra.
ORDER
The undersigned has joined this Bench online through video conferencing facility.
2. Shri K.P. Singh, ld. counsel for the applicant and Shri M.P. Mishra, ld. counsel for the respondents are present. 2
3. The applicant by virtue of the present O.A. seeks the following relief(s): -
"(A) To issue an order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2016 and impugned advertisement dated 25.12.2016.
(B) To issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to permit the applicant to join on the post of PTC All India Radio/TV, Bulandshahar with all consequential benefits. (C) To issue any order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(D) To award cost to the applicant."
4. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement for engagement to the post of Part Time Correspondents by All India Radio, Lucknow, the applicant got selected on merit.
However, she could not meet one of the requirements for the selection which was that the selected candidate should be residing within a radius of 10 kilometers of the radio station Headquarter. The purpose behind this requirement is that the duty of Part Time Correspondents is to collect the local news.
5. Ld. counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the applicant fulfilled all the requirements for the post and had been engaged purely on merits. It was just an inadvertent error /omission that while mentioning her address in one of the documents, she mentioned her permanent address rather than the address where she was living at that particular time. Ld. counsel for the applicant submits that the local Sub Divisional Magistrate is the most competent authority to issue certificate of proof of residence and she has submitted the proof of residence from this authority before the respondents who have however ignored the same list, and instead they have appointed the next candidate in 3 the selection whose candidature too has also been cancelled later on account of certain other irregularities. Ld. counsel vehemently pleads that the direction be issued to the respondents to engage the applicant as Part Time Correspondent since she had been selected on her own merit after successfully clearing the selection process.
6. Ld. counsel for the respondents submits that the stipulation of keeping residence within 10 kilometers is a requirement under the policy and being a statutory requirement it cannot be compromised with. He points out that the proof of residence upon which the applicant's counsel is relying upon does not hold good because it is only a temporary residence and for the purpose of engagement, the respondents have to take into consideration the permanent residence of the applicant.
7. However, I find that by way of an interim order the subsequent selection process initiated by the respondents in the year 2016 had also been stayed. As a result, neither the applicant has been engaged nor has any other person been engaged as a Part Time Correspondent. Moreover, ld. counsel has pointed out that the engagement of Part Time Correspondent is only for a period of two years initially and thereafter the concerned persons may be employed afresh if they are found suitable. Accordingly, he submits that it is not known as to whether the advertisement of 2016 is still alive or not and whether the respondents are in a position to engage a Part Time Correspondent or even if there is any requirement of the same.
4
8. Leaving the aforesaid controversy aside, it would be appropriate to dispose of this O.A. with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents that in case their policy and circumstances allow, they should proceed ahead with the advertisement of the year 2016 for engagement of Part Time Correspondent and allow a fair chance to the present applicant to be considered for such engagement without going into the controversy of proof of residence. However, in case the respondents do not wish to proceed ahead with the advertisement of 2016 and if they had issued any fresh advertisement thereafter, similar opportunity shall be afforded to the applicant subject to her meeting all the other requirements as applicable to other candidates.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to cost.
(Tarun Shridhar) Member (A) /M.M/