Casual employees not meeting regularization scheme criteria are ineligible for permanent absorption into service.

The applicant served as a Casual Announcer/Compere at All India Radio (AIR), Trivandrum, from 1999

He challenged orders (Annexures A1 and A11) terminating his services with immediate effect

The applicant contended that he was utilized against regular vacancies, had served for a significant duration, and was removed abruptly without notice

Conversely, the respondents asserted that the applicant's engagement was purely contractual and did not entitle him to regularization

They further noted that a specific regularization scheme had been formulated following prior litigation that reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization of service under the scheme framed by Prasar Bharati

2. Whether the applicant's termination was valid given the nature of his contractual assignment

The Tribunal primarily relied on the principles governing the regularization of irregular appointments as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006)

This was read alongside the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum No. 49019/1/2006-Estt (C) dated 11.12.2006

Furthermore, the court considered the Prasar Bharati Circular dated 05.09.2019, which formulated a specific scheme for the regularization of irregular engagements in All India Radio and Doordarshan in compliance with judicial mandates

The Tribunal noted that while a scheme for regularization exists for casual workers in Prasar Bharati, eligibility is strictly governed by the parameters laid down in the Circular dated 05.09.2019

The respondents argued that the applicant failed to meet the specific criteria defined within this scheme

After reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found that since the applicant did not fall within the ambit of the prescribed scheme, he could not claim the benefit of regularization or equality with regular employees

The court determined that the contractual nature of the assignment precluded the relief sought by the applicant under the current framework

The Original Application was closed, though the Tribunal granted the applicant liberty to agitate any related questions in the future if so advised

No order as to costs was made