Doordarshan Casual Producers’ Challenge To 3 Contract Broadcast Executive Roles Fails; CAT Says Their Engagement Was Casual, Not Contractual

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicants, engaged as Casual News Producers on an assignment basis, could claim a right to continue until regular appointments were made or challenge the recruitment of Broadcast Executives as substitution of one set of contract employees by another.

The court held

The Tribunal held that the applicants had no sustainable cause of action to set aside the Broadcast Executive notification or claim continuation until regular appointments were made.

It also directed

It dismissed the Original Application and made no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicants were members of a panel of Casual News Producers at Doordarshan Kendra, Thiruvananthapuram, selected following a 2018 notification.

¶ 2–4

They worked as Bulletin News Producers when required, subject to a maximum of seven assignments per month, and were paid per assignment.

¶ 7–10

Prasar Bharati issued a notification dated 8 March 2024 inviting applications for three Broadcast Executive positions on a two-year contractual basis.

¶ 5–6

An interim order initially restrained final appointments, but the restraint was later vacated; the Tribunal recorded that any appointments made would remain subject to the outcome of the application.

¶ 14

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicants, engaged as Casual News Producers on an assignment basis, could claim a right to continue until regular appointments were made or challenge the recruitment of Broadcast Executives as substitution of one set of contract employees by another.

¶ 15–16

ii.2. Whether the applicants’ length of service and the cited authorities gave rise to a legitimate expectation of continued engagement or regularization.

¶ 18–20

03Law Applied

The Tribunal treated the nature and terms of engagement as decisive: casual assignees called upon as and when required, without an employment agreement or a sanctioned post, do not thereby acquire a right to continuity until regular appointments are made.

¶ 7, 9, 16

It distinguished Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2025 AIR (SC) 3897, and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 (2) SC 530, which it understood as concerning long-term contractual or daily-wage employment of a perennial nature and, in the latter case, engagement preceded by a proper selection process.

¶ 18–20

The Tribunal held those authorities inapplicable because the applicants’ assignments were casual, on-call, and limited to a maximum of seven per month.

¶ 20

04Reasoning

The Tribunal rejected the applicants’ central premise that they were contract employees liable to be replaced by another set of contract employees.

¶ 16

It found that they were casual assignees engaged without a written contract, called only when required, and with no sanctioned News Producer posts or recruitment rules; accordingly, the asserted right to remain until regular recruitment could not be sustained.

¶ 16

It also relied on the respondents’ statement that the casual panel would remain in existence and be used as required, concluding that the applicants’ apprehension of displacement was unfounded.

¶ 12, 16, 21

The cited Supreme Court decisions did not assist them because, as the Tribunal characterized those cases, they involved materially different, perennial employment arrangements.

¶ 20

05Holding

The Tribunal held that the applicants had no sustainable cause of action to set aside the Broadcast Executive notification or claim continuation until regular appointments were made.

¶ 21

It dismissed the Original Application and made no order as to costs.

¶ 21

LawLens.CAT - ['Ernakulam']

Original Court PDF