Casual artists meeting the service threshold while age-eligible remain eligible for regularisation despite later becoming overage.

Bimalendu Guha worked as a casual Graphic Artist at Doordarshan Kendra, Kolkata, under intermittent engagements beginning in 1989.

He was under 25 when first engaged and worked 120 days in 1991, before the scheme’s cut-off date of 31 December 1991.

The 1992 scheme provided for consideration of qualifying casual artists for regularisation.

Doordarshan rejected Guha’s claim on the ground that he was over the age limit by 5 months and 17 days.

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application, quashed the relevant administrative orders and screening-committee report, and directed regularisation from the scheme’s introduction.

The Union of India and Doordarshan challenged that decision by writ petition.

1. Whether Guha was eligible for consideration under the regularisation scheme, given that he had worked 120 days in 1991 and was below the prescribed age when first engaged.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s decision directing his regularisation was erroneous or perverse.

The Court applied the Doordarshan scheme for regularisation of casual staff artists, issued pursuant to the Tribunal’s decision in Anil Kumar Mathur v. Union of India, OA No. 563/86, and the related OMs dated 30 June 1992 and 9 June 1992.

Under the scheme, casual artists employed on a casual basis by 31 December 1991 could be considered, including artists no longer in service, if they had worked an aggregate of 120 days in a calendar year before that date.

The Court also considered the recruitment rules notified by GSR 581 dated 28 June 1988, which prescribed an upper age limit of 25 years, and the 9 June 1992 order concerning age relaxation.

It held that a clarificatory note could not override the scheme.

The Court found that Guha had first been engaged while under 25 and had completed 120 days of work in 1991, satisfying the scheme’s relevant eligibility conditions.

It rejected the authorities’ reliance on his being overage by 5 months and 17 days at the time of the later order, reasoning that his age at initial engagement brought him within the applicable age limit.

The clarificatory note did not alter the scheme’s requirements or defeat his eligibility.

Accordingly, the Tribunal’s decision was neither erroneous nor perverse.

It discharged the rule and disposed of any pending civil application.

The Tribunal’s direction to regularise Guha with effect from the introduction of the scheme therefore remained undisturbed.