D.M.Sairama Raju, v. The Union Of India

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 34732 of 2016 ORDER: (Per VRS,J) Heard Mr. B.V.R. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. I. Koti Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5.

2.

The petitioner, who was appointed on a contract basis as a News Stringer, filed an application in O.A.No.1886 of 2015 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, challenging an order passed by the Deputy Director refusing to extend his services. The said application was taken up along with the applications filed by other similarly placed candidates, and by a common order, dated 14.03.2016, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before us. 3.

There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was appointed only on temporary basis, and that too, on a consolidated pay on contract, to contribute for programmes of Doordarshan Kendra. It appears that the contract was renewed from time to time. The last of such renewals was granted on 23.09.2014 by the Deputy Director General.

4.

However, by a proceeding, dated 30.9.2015, fresh applications

VRS,J & GSP,J WP No. 34732 of 2016 were invited. Questioning the invitation so extended on 30.09.2015, the petitioner and others submitted letters. The letters were rejected by an order, dated 28.10.2015, pointing out that the petitioner could always apply for fresh empanelment, pursuant to the notification, dated 30.09.2015.

5.

Insofar as the reliance placed upon the extension granted up to December, 2016 by the proceedings of the Deputy Director General, dated 23.09.2014, are concerned, the respondents have taken a stand that the Deputy Director General was not competent to grant such extension. The procedure for empanelment of News Stringers shows that the empanelment is done by a Committee. The petitioner was not appointed to any civil post or to any post in the civil services of the Union. The appointment was temporary for a fixed period. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the application. We find no merit in the writ petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J _____________________ G. SHYAM PRASAD, J 24th October, 2016 cbs

VRS,J & GSP,J WP No. 34732 of 2016 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN √ AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD Writ Petition No. 34732 of 2016 (Per VRS,J) 24th October, 2016 cbs