T.K. Manojan and others v. K.S. Rajasekharan and others and Union of India

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 22461 of 2008 (S) ----------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA NO.657/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 13-03-2008** - **PETITIONER(S): ------------1. T.K. MANOJAN, S/O.T.KARUNAKARAN AGED 46 YEARS, PROGRAMME EXECUTIVE [ADHOC] ALL INDIA RADIO, KOCHI RESIDING PERMANENTLY AT RAVINDRAMANDIRAM NJARAKKAL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.** - **2. K.V. SARATHCHANDRAN, S/O.K.V. NARAYANAN AGED 42 YEARS, TRANSMISSION EXECUTIVE ALL INDIA RADIO, KOCHI RESIDING AT C3, AIR QUARTERS, THRIKKAKKARA P.O. KOCHI.** - **3. UDAYAKUMAR V., S/O.T.R.V. NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS TRANSMISSION EXECUTIVE, ALL INDIA RADIO, TRICHUR RESIDING AT D3, AIR STAFF QUARTERS RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 631.** - **4. C.KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.M.VASUDEVA MENON, AGED 42 YEARS TRANSMISSION EXECUTIVE, ALL INDIA RADIO, CALICUT RESIDING AT AIII, NEELAMBARI, HI LITE ROYAL CREST APARTMENTS, CHULLIODE ROAD, KOTTOOLI P.O. PIN-673 016.** - **5. M.V. SASIKUMAR, S/O. M.B. MENON, AGED 40 YEARS TRANSMISSION EXECUTIVE, ALL INDIA RADIO, TRIVANDRUM RESIDING AT GEETHANJALI, TC 13/651, KUNNUKUZHI TRIVANDRUM-37.** - **6. R. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED 40 YEARS, TRANSMISSION EXECUTIVE ALL INDIA RADIO, CALICUT, RESIDING AT SRAVANAM ROSE GARDENS, PVS PARTK, KUTHIRAVATTOM CALICUT-16.** - **7. K.V. SUDHA, D/O. K.V. VASU, AGED 49 YEARS TRANSMISSION EXECUTIVE, ALL INDIA RADIO THRISSUR, RESIDING AT NJATTUVETTI HOUSE PONJANAM P.O., KATTUR P.O., THRISSUR.** **[CONTD....]** **WP(C).No. 22461 of 2008 (S)** **2** **8. K.S. PARDHAN, S/O.S.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS TRANSMISSION EXECUTIVE, ALL INDIA RADIO, TRIVANDRUM RESIDING AT ATTOOR VEEDU, PNGANADU, KILIMANOOR P.O. TRIVANDRUM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SRI.SURAJ.S SMT.VINEETHA B.** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------** **1. K.S. RAJASEKHARAN, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT TC9/783 V.J. LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 010.** **2. M.N. UNNI, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT K; 7/17, DRISYA, JP LANE KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, TRIVANDRUM-695 043.** **3. D. RAJAN, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT UDAYAM, KP5.1002 KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O., VP THAMBI ROAD TRIVANDRUM-695 043.** **4. K. SREEKUMAR, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT KAKKAD, TC14/231 (1) SILVER HILL, ANAYARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM-29.** **5. E. SETHUMADHAVAN, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT KP V/253-D MLA ROAD, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, TRIVANDRUM-43.** **6. G.CHANDRAN, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT SOURA KULATHOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 583.** **7. G.R. KANNAN, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT 110 AKG NAGAR, PEROORKKADA P.O., TRIVANDRUM-5.** **8. R. RAJENDRAN PILLAI, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT D8 DOORDARSHAN QUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM-43.** **9. B.S. MINI, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT NIRMALYAM PANDIT LANE, SURVEY SCHOOL ROAD, PEROORKADA TRIVANDRUM-43.** **10. C.R. HARIKUMAR, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT THIRUMUTTAM KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O., TRIVANDRUM-43.** **[CONTD....]** **WP(C).No. 22461 of 2008 (S)** **3** **11. P.J. RADHAKRISHNAN, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT PARADAYIL MANAPPALLY P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.** **12. S. RAJARAM, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA KP41, JP LANE, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O., TRIVANDRUM-43.** **13. RENJITH RAVI, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT TC 14/1738 RAVI SREE, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM.** **14. M.R. SHEEBA, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM RESIDING AT MOOTHASERIL HOUSE, PERINGASSERRY P.O. THODUPUZHA, [VIA] IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **15. DIRECTOR, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU TRIVANDRUM-43.** **16. DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN, PRASAR BHARATHI DOORDARSHAN BHAVAN, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.** **17. DIRECTOR GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, PRASAR BHARATHI parliament STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.** **18. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRASAR BHARATHI CORPORATION DOORDARSHAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.** - **19. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE TO THE POST OF PROGRAMME EXECUTIVE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AKASHVANI BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.** **20. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.** - **[R19 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 02.09.2008 IN IA. NO.11106 OF 2008]** **BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.SUJIN,SC DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,TVM SRI.S.VISHNU SRI.P.J.PHILIP, C.G.C SRI.N.NAGARESH, A.S.G.I. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, A.S.G.I.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2016, THE COURT ON 21.12.2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 22461 of 2008 (S)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-** **---------------------** |**EXT.P1**|**-**|**COPY OF ALL INDIA RADIO [CLASS II POSTS]**| |---|---|---| |||**RECRUITMENT RULES, 1962.**| |**EXT.P2**|**-**|**COPY OF ALL INDIA RADIO [GROUP B POSTS]**| |||**RECRUITMENT [AMENDMENT] RULES, 1984.**| |**EXT.P3**|**-**|**COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.11/1/85-S VII DATED**| |||**12.08.1985 ISSUED BY THE 15TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P4**|**-**|**COPY OF ORDER NO.DDK/TVM/1(2)85-SA(OC)**| |||**DATED 05.11.1985.**| |**EXT.P5**|**-**|**COPY OF DOORDARSHAN PROGRAMME [TECHNICAL/GROUP C**| |||**POSTS] RECRUITMENT RULES, 1987.**| |**EXT.P6**|**-**|**COPY OF ORDER NO.DDK/TVM 1(2)88-S DATED 23.05.1988,**| |||**ISSUED BY THE 15TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P7**|**-**|**COPY OF ALL INDIA RADIO [GROUP B POSTS] RECRUITMENT**| |||**[AMENDMENT]RULES, 1992.**| |**EXT.P8**|**-**|**COPY OF ALL INDIA RADIO [GROUP B POSTS] RECRUITMENT**| |||**[AMENDMENT]RULES, 1993.**| |**EXT.P9**|**-**|**COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.2(3)/86-SC DATED**| |||**09.06.1992 ISSUED FOR THE 16TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P10**|**-**|**COPY OF MEMO NO.21(6)/93-A1/DKT DATED 02.03.1993**| |||**ISSUED BY THE 15TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P11**|**-**|**COPY OF LIST OF PRODUCTION ASSISTANTS AS ON**| |||**01.05.1997 ISSUED FRO THE 15TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P12**|**-**|**COPY OF ELIGIBILITY LIST OF STAFF ARTISTS PUBLISEHD**| |||**BY ORDER NO.1/5/2000-SVII/462 DATED 10.09.2001 **| |||**ISSUED BY THE 17TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P13**|**-**|**COPY OF PRASAR BHARATHI [BROADCASTING CORPORATION**| |||**OF INDIA] [SENIOR PROGRAMME POSTS] RECRUITMENT **| |||**REGULATION, 2002.**| |**EXT.P14**|**-**|**COPY OF ORDER NO.DEL/23(2)/SL/2002 SVII [TREX]/6791**| |||**DATED 20.02.2003 ISSUED BY THE 17TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P15**|**-**|**COPY OF ORDER NO.1/13/2004 SVII DATED 13.07.2005**| |||**ISSUED BY THE 17TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P16**|**-**|**COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION 657/2005 [WITHOUT **| |||**ANNEXURES].**| **[CONTD....]** **WP(C).No. 22461 of 2008 (S)** **2** |**EXT.P17**|**-**|**COPY OF DOCUMENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A6 IN THE OA**| |---|---|---| |||**NO.657 OF 2005.**| |**EXT.P18**|**-**|**COPY OF LETTER NO.2/10/2005/S1 DATED 29.11.2005**| |||**ISSUED BY THE 16TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P19**|**-**|**COPY OF FINAL ORDER DATED 01.12.2005 IN O.A.**| |||**NO.213/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE CENTRAL**| |||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH.**| |**EXT.P20**|**-**|**COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 25.10.2007 IN O.A.**| |||**NO.657/2005 [WITHOUT ANNEXURES].**| |**EXT.P21**|**-**|**COPY OF ANNEXURE R3 REFERRED IN EXHIBIT P20.**| |**EXT.P22**|**-**|**COPY OF ANNEXURE R4 REFERRED IN EXHIBIT P20.**| |**EXT.P23**|**-**|**COPY OF STATEMENT FILED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE**| |||**RESPONDENTS 1,2 AND 4 IN OA NO.657/2005.**| |**EXT.P24**|**-**|**COPY OF FINAL ORDER DATED 13.03.2008 IN O.A.**| |||**NO.657/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE CENTRAL**| |||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**| **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:---------------------** |**EXT.R1**|**-**|**COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DDK/TVM/1(2)85-SA (OC) DATED**| |---|---|---| |||**05.11.1985 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, DOORDARSHAN **| |||**KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM.**| |**EXT.R2**|**-**|**COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DDK/TVM/1(2)88-S DATED**| |||**23.05.1988 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, DOORDARSHAN **| |||**KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM.**| |**EXT.R3**|**-**|**COPY OF THE ORDER NO.21(6)/89-A1/DKT DATED**| |||**21.04.1989 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, DOORDARSHAN **| |||**KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM.**| |**EXT.R4**|**-**|**COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.21(6)/93-AI/DKT DATED**| |||**02.03.1993 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, DOORDARSHAN**| |||**KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM.**| |**EXT.R5**|**-**|**COPY OF THE ORDER NO.21(5)94-AI/DKT DATED**| |||**20.05.1994 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, DOORDARSHAN**| |||**KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM.**| |**EXT.R6**|**-**|**COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2(6)/96-AI/DKT DATED**| |||**15.07.1996 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, DOORDARSHAN**| |||**KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM.**| |**EXT.R7**|**-**|**COPY OF THE ORDER NO.21(5)-98-AI/DKT DATED**| |||**16.09.1999 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, DOORDARSHAN**| |||**KENDRA, TRIVANDRUM.**| |||**//TRUE COPY//**| |||**P.A. TO JUDGE**| ## **sp** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & P.SOMARAJAN JJ. --------------------------------------WP(C)No.22461 of 2008** **--------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of December, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** ## P.R. Ramachandra Menon Challenge is against Ext.P24 verdict passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A No.657 of 2005, whereby the OA filed by respondents 1 to 4 was allowed and the 3[rd] respondent in the OA [17[th] respondent herein and the Cadre Controlling Authority] was directed to finalise the seniority list of Production Assistants recruited by Doordarshan, after February, 1985 and also consider such Production Assistants for promotion as Programme Executives, in accordance with the Recruitment Rule at Annexure A6, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 2 2. The writ petitioners are strangers, who were never parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal and hence their ' _locus standi'_ itself is under challenge, by virtue of the law declared by the Supreme Court in _**Rajeevkumar & Another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Others [(2010) 4 SCC 584/AIR 2010 SC 1679]**_ **,** and the verdicts passed by Division Bench of this Court at different points of time. 3. The OA was filed with the following prayers: _“1. Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A9 and set aside the same to the extent applicants name are not included in it._ _2. Declare that the applicants are entitled to be included in Annexure A9 eligibility list for purpose of promotion to the post of Programme Executive as per Annexure A6 recruitment rule and direct the respondents to take action accordingly._ _3. Declare that the exclusion of the applicants from the feeder category for promotion to the category of PEX is illegal and arbitrary._ _4. Direct the respondents to strictly follow the recruitment rule at Annexure A6 including the ratio prescribed in the matter of promotion to the post of PEX._ _5. Direct the respondents to consider the grievances of the applicants who are Production_ WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 3 _Assistants and who are facing acute stagnation by creation of appropriate promotional avenues._ _6. Any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice._ _7. Award the cost of these proceedings.”_ 4. As borne by the pleadings raised in the OA, the gist of the grievance was that the applicants, by virtue of their merit, were appointed as 'Staff Artists' by the Doordarshan after February, 1985 and were absorbed as 'Production Assistants'; who are stated as entitled to be enlisted in the Feeder Category for promotion to the post of 'Programme Executives'. However, on publishing Annexure A19 list, they came to be excluded, which made them to approach the Tribunal for inclusion in the list and to be considered for promotion to the post of 'Programme Executive', in tune with Annexure A6 Recruitment Rules. 5. The eligibility of the applicants was not disputed by the official respondents. Taking note of the undisputed facts and figures, the Tribunal passed Ext.P24 order, giving WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 4 appropriate direction to the Cadre Controlling Authority [3[rd] respondent in the OA], the operative portion of which [as contained in paragraph 7 of the order] is extracted as below: _“7. For the reasons stated above, we have no hesitation in allowing the OA. The OA is allowed. The respondent No.3 is directed to finalise the seniority list of Production Assistants recruited by Doordarshan after February 1985 and also consider such production assistants for promotion as Programme Executive in accordance with the recruitment rule at A-6 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”_ According to the petitioners, the said direction given by the Tribunal is contrary to the actual facts and circumstances, the relevant Recruitment Rules and is the result of an act of collusion between the applicants and the official respondents, which hence is sought to be intercepted by way of the present writ petition. 6. Heard Sri.M.R. Hariraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.S.Vishnu, the learned WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 5 counsel appearing for the party respondent/ applicants, Sri.S.Sujin, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for Doordarshan and Sri.N. Nagaresh, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union of India and other authorities of the Central Government. 7. The sum and substance of the case projected in the writ petition is; firstly that Annexure A6 is not the Recruitment Rule for promotion to the post of 'Programme Executive' and secondly; that 'Production Assistant' is not the Feeder Category post, but it is 'Transmission Executive' with five years' regular service. This according to the petitioners, is evident from Ext.P1 Recruitment Rules of 1962 and the Cadre Controlling Authority is the Director General of AIR, for both the AIR and Doordarshan in respect of common Cadres. 8. It is stated that, as per Ext.P2 Amendment Rules, 1984 [herein after referred to as Rules, 1984], Rule 4(a) WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 6 was introduced to facilitate absorption of Staff Artists also as Feeder Category for promotion to the post of 'Programme Executives' [to be effected in consultation with the Staff Selection Commission]. It was also stipulated that, the merger will take place only on effecting promotion to the respective quota. As per Ext.P3 OM of the year 1985, it was further stipulated that no more appointment of Staff Artist shall be effected, but violation was still going on and appointments were being effected by Doordarshan, even after February, 1985. 9. As per Ext.P7 AIR [Group B] Recruitment [Amendment] Rules, 1992, Ext.P1 Rules were stated as amended and the promotion quota was increased, however the promotion was restricted to Staff Artists, designated as Transmission Executives. Then there came Ext.P8 Amended Recruitment Rules of 1993, whereby some of the Feeder Categories were added for promotion to the post of the WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 7 Programme Executives. Despite the existence of Ext.P2 Rules/Scheme formulated by the Government for absorption of the Staff Artists, Ext.P9 Scheme was introduced by the Director General of Doordarshan. Though it was made clear as per Ext.P10 OM No.21(6)/93-A1/DKT dated 02.03.1993 that, it would only have prospective effect, respondents 1 to 11 were treated as Government Servants from the initial date of engagement, whereas the respondents 12 to 14, who were appointed subsequently in the year 1996, were not given the benefit. Ext.P11 is the list of Production Assistants as on 01.05.1997. As per Ext.P12 draft eligibility list dated 19.01.2001, some of the party respondents were included, but they also came to be deleted, when Ext.P5 'Draft Eligibility List' was published on 13.07.2005. Non inclusion of party respondents was sought to be challenged by filing OA No.657 of 2005, also producing a copy of the Rules, 1984 as Ext.P17, which according to the petitioners, WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 8 is not genuine or valid, but mutilated. At the same time, Ext.P18 letter was issued by the Director General of Doordarshan, 16[th] respondent herein, to the effect that a common eligibility list was proposed to be finalised and issued, despite the fact that he was not the Cadre Controlling Authority and as such, beyond his competence and jurisdiction. 10. It is further pointed out by the petitioners that, a passive role was played by the official respondents, yielding to the claim/relief prayed for by the applicants, before the Chennai Bench of the CAT in OA No.213 of 2005, which was disposed of as per Ext.P19 order dated 01.12.2005, operative portion of which reads as follows:- _“The applicant has made the following prayers:_ _(i) To direct the respondents to include the name of the applicants in the all India Seniority/Eligibility list of candidates list for promotion to the post of Programme Executive by taking into account of the applicants length of service rendered as Production_ WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 9 ## _Assistant._ _(ii) To pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to award costs._ _2. Before the matter was heard the counsel for the respondents has furnished a communication No.2/10/2005/ S1 dated 29.11.2005 from the Deputy Director (Admn), Prasar Bharati, DG DDK, New Delhi, before us. As per this communication it is seen that they are preparing seniority list of Production Assistants recruited by Doordarshan Kendra after February, 1985 and according to them a common seniority list is prepared for incorporation in the common eligibility list for promotion to the Grade of Production Executives. The exercise according to the respondents is voluminous and may take minimum six months time. However, considering the submission made by the Counsel for the applicant, we direct the respondents to complete this exercise within three months period from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”_ It is also conceded that, though the matter was subjected to challenge before the High Court of Madras and an interim stay was obtained, it was subsequently vacated, and that the Ministry had decided to finalise the matter pursuant to the said verdict. WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 10 11. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents/applicants asserted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. It is submitted that no interference is warranted, since the direction issued by the Tribunal as per Ext.P24 is only to consider the matter and to have it finalised in accordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules. It is further brought to the notice of this Court, that the first petitioner in the present writ petition was the 33[rd] respondent in the Madras High Court [presumably having been impleaded therein] and as such, he was very much aware of the course and events, despite which, no attempt was made to get impleaded in OA No.687 of 2005 before the CAT, Ernakulam or to have Ext.P24 verdict challenged by filing any Review Application. 12. With regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, admittedly the petitioners were not parties to the WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 11 proceedings before the Tribunal. They have set up their case for the first time before this Court, without taking any attempt to have it had projected before the Tribunal, at the first instance. The law is well-settled by the Apex Court as per the decision rendered in Rajeevkumar's case [cited supra] whereby it was categorically held, (making a reference to the constitution decision of the Apex Court in _**L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others [(1997) 3 SCC 261]),**_ that the parties cannot approach the High Court as the Court of first instance and that such proceeding is not maintainable. Placing reliance on the said verdict, a Division Bench of this Court held in WP(C) No.20979 of 2010 [arising from OA No.16 of 2009 of the CAT, Ernakulam] that the writ petition filed by the petitioners, who were not parties to the OA, was not maintainable. Similar course was pursued by another Bench of this Court as well [with one of the learned Judges WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 12 remaining to be the same] in OP [KAT] No.1286 of 2013 [arising from T.A. No.3560 of 2012] and interference was declined as per judgment dated 19.06.2013, refusing to consider the merits. It was dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to pursue other appropriate remedies in accordance with law. We do not find any reason to deviate and we hold that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court, as the petitioners have approached this Court directly, treating this Court as the Court of first instance and that too, without filing any petition for getting 'leave' or obtaining the 'leave'. 13. Coming to the merits as well, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents/ applicants, that a similar issue, which was pending consideration before the Principle Bench of the CAT at New Delhi in OA Nos.2229 of 2009 and 242 of 2015 has been answered by the Madras High Court in OA No.242 of 2015. WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 13 After considering the rival pleadings, the factual sequence was noted in paragraph 15 of the verdict is in the following terms:- _“15. What emerges is as follows:_ _(i) DG, AIR is the cadre controlling authority for both AIR and Doordarshan;_ _(ii) The RRs of 1962 were amended in 1992-1993 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India;_ _(iii) There was a decision to convert all Staff Artists into government servants through the 1984 amendment, which included Production Assistant and other positions;_ _(iv) Despite the ban, the RRs of 1988 for Doordarshan were notified under Article 309 and, therefore, obviously this had the approval of the Ministry. This is being stated because respondents have tried to make out a case that Doordarshan has done the same independently without the knowledge of the government. This cannot be true once the notification is under Article 309;_ _(v) There were two streams, therefore, within Prasar Bharati, one who were appointed/regularized in AIR under the notified Rules of 1962 as amended in 1984/1992/1993 and another stream of Production Assistants which came after the RRs of 1988, meant only for Doordarshan;_ _(vi) The 1993 amendment clearly includes Production Assistants, Floor Managers and Property Assistants as feeder_ WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 14 _cadre;_ _(vii) The respondents before the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court and in the Contempt Petition were directed to draw combined seniority including Doordarshan Production Assistants therein recruited after 1985. This exercise by Doordarshan has been going on for years and now they have come up with a proposal for amendment, which is cleared by the Prasar Bharati Board.”_ ## 14. The further observations contained in paragraph 16 and the direction given in paragraph 17 are also extracted below:- _“16. From the above narration, it would be seen that for whatever reasons, Production Assistants were appointed in Doordarshan which comes under Prasar Bharati under notified RRs under Article 309. The designation in the notification is Production Assistant. The same posts are included in the amendment of 1993. In fact, by proposing an amendment now including Production Assistants appointed after 1985 under the 1988 Rules, the respondents clearly give the signal that they have no objection to open this channel as feeder channel for the applicants. This we say just to support that there are no technical difficulties in including the applicants._ _17. We fail to see how having notified the RRs under Article 309, in 1988 the respondents can now deny to recognize these recruits as_ WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 15 _Production Assistants. There is no way to distinguish these Production Assistants from other Production Assistants. The invention of the term Production Assistant (Technical) is clearly an afterthought. The RRs of 1988 do not mention the post of Production Assistant (Technical). We are, therefore, convinced that the claim of the applicants is valid and they should be treated eligible as feeder cadre for the post of PEX. The impugned orders dated 7/8.01.2015 (OA 242/2015) and 31.07.2015 (OA 2229/2009) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue fresh eligibility after considering the candidates of all the feeder posts including the applicants who occupy the posts of Production Assistants, Floor Managers and Property Assistants for conducting DPC for regular/adhoc promotion to the post of PEX. We fix a time frame of 90 days from receipt of a certified copy of this order for implementation of our directions. No costs.”_ 15. We do not intend to express anything with regard to the merits of the case, as we have found that the petitioners do not have any ' _locus standi'_ to have approached this Court, directly against the verdict passed by the Tribunal, by way of this writ petition and that the writ petition is not maintainable. In such circumstances, interference is declined and the WP(C)No.22461 of 2008 16 writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to other appropriate remedy, if any, in accordance with law. Sd/- **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.** Sd/- **P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE.** sp