Casual presenters who hold no civil post fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The applicants were engaged by All India Radio (AIR) as Casual Presenters, on an as-and-when-required basis, for no more than six days per month or 72 days per year.

They sought regularization and challenged AIR orders dated 21 February and 18 April 2017 providing for auditions and rescreening of fresh and existing panel members.

AIR maintained that the applicants had not been appointed to sanctioned posts and were engaged only when required; a departmental committee had concluded that regularization was not administratively or economically feasible.

The Tribunal considered the applications together and noted decisions of other CAT Benches and courts concerning similar claims, including that the applicants were not holders of civil posts.

Whether the applicants’ engagement as Casual Presenters constituted holding civil posts or otherwise brought their claims within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the applicants could obtain regularization or challenge AIR’s audition and rescreening orders in these proceedings.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 permits an application to the Tribunal in matters within its statutory jurisdiction.

The judgment treated the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as unavailable where the applicants were not holders of civil posts and their engagement did not arise under statutory service conditions.

It also referred to Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, concerning the limits on judicial directions for regularization, and P.U. Joshi, concerning the authority’s role in determining the creation of posts and service structure.

The judgment further noted the Supreme Court’s disposal of Director General, All India Radio v. Purushothaman C. & Ors., which stated that applicants seeking relief under the formulated scheme could have their cases considered in accordance with law.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were engaged only as required, subject to a prescribed limit, and had not been appointed against sanctioned civil posts under applicable recruitment rules.

Their engagement therefore did not make them Government servants or holders of civil posts, nor did it attract statutory service conditions sufficient to bring the dispute within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

In consequence, the Tribunal held that it could not adjudicate the applicants’ claims for regularization or their challenge to AIR’s policy orders.

It dismissed the OA as devoid of merit, made no order as to costs, and directed that a copy of the order be placed on the records of the five connected OAs.