Regularization of casual employees is restricted to the specific criteria defined in the officially notified scheme.

The applicants were engaged as Casual Announcers, Comperes, and Production Assistants at various stations of All India Radio (AIR).

After working for various periods, they were directed by the respondents to undergo fresh selection processes, including audition and screening tests.

The applicants challenged this requirement, seeking empanelment based on their prior work experience and tests already cleared, and contested the engagement of new personnel over them.

The respondents argued that casual engagements were limited to 72 days per year for exigencies and that periodic re-screening was essential to maintain competitive broadcasting standards and voice quality.

During the pendency of the litigation, and following directions from the Supreme Court, Prasar Bharati framed a specific scheme for the regularization of irregular appointments.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to continued empanelment and regularization based on their past service without undergoing fresh screening.

2. Whether the applicants fall within the scope and eligibility criteria of the "Scheme for regularization of irregular appointments/engagements in Prasar Bharati".

"Scheme for regularization of irregular appointments/engagements in Prasar Bharati (All India Radio & Doordarshan)" dated 05.09.2019.

Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) O.M. No. 49019/1/2006-Estt (C) dated 11.12.2006.

Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA 3595-3612 of 1999, which established the framework for regularizing irregular (as opposed to illegal) appointments.

The Tribunal examined the respondents' statement filed in early 2026, which included the formal circular and the Regularization Scheme framed under DOPT guidelines and Supreme Court mandates.

The respondents specifically averred that the applicants did not meet the criteria defined in the scheme and were therefore ineligible for regularization.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants did not repudiate this statement.

Furthermore, there was no representation for the applicants on the date of the final hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the implementation of the scheme and the respondents' factual determination regarding the applicants' ineligibility—which remained unchallenged—rendered the prayers in the O.A.s unsustainable.

The Original Applications were closed, effectively denying the relief sought.

The Tribunal granted the applicants liberty to move the court again if a future change in situation warrants such action.

No costs were awarded.