CASUAL EMPLOYEES: Regularization scheme does not apply if applicants fall outside its scope.

The applicants in these four Original Applications were working as Casual Announcers/Comperes/Production Assistants at All India Radio, Thiruvananthapuram, and in O.A. No. 180/00610/2015, the applicant was an Ex-casual Announcer/Compere at All India Radio, Calicut.

Their grievance was that they were neither being given assignments nor regularized in their positions.

During the pendency of these applications, the respondents framed a Scheme for the regularization of casual employees in these categories, based on directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The respondents produced a copy of this scheme, issued on September 5, 2019, and an order from the Apex Court dated October 30, 2025, in Civil Appeal Nos. 8859-8860/2016.

The respondents contended that none of the applicants fell within the scope of this regularization scheme.

This contention was not denied by the applicants, and they did not file any rejoinder.

1. Whether the applicants, working as Casual Announcers/Comperes/Production Assistants, were entitled to regularization.

2. Whether the applicants fell within the ambit of the regularization scheme framed by the respondents based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions.

The court primarily applied the Scheme for regularization of casual employees issued on September 5, 2019, which itself was formulated based on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8859-8860/2016 dated October 30, 2025.

The core legal principle was that regularization would be governed by this specific scheme, and eligibility under it was a prerequisite for such relief.

The court noted that the applicants were seeking regularization of their services as Casual Announcers/Comperes/Production Assistants.

It was established that a regularization scheme had been framed by the respondents, following directives from the Supreme Court.

The critical point in the analysis was the respondents' assertion that the applicants did not meet the criteria of this scheme.

Crucially, the applicants did not refute this claim or present any counter-arguments through a rejoinder.

Since the applicants could not demonstrate their eligibility under the governing regularization scheme, the court found no basis to grant their request for regularization.

The court recorded the respondents' contention that the applicants did not fall within the scope of the regularization scheme.

The applicants were granted liberty to approach an appropriate forum if they were so advised.

No costs were awarded.