Shri Goswami has pointed out that the respondents have also claimed the benefit of the said provision and in their petition before the Tribunal, they had referred to the advertisement published in April 1990 whereby Doordarshan Kendra, Gauhati had invited applications for regular appointment on the post of Production Assistant Property Assistant etc.
It is, however, number necessary to go into the said question because during the pendency of this appeal, office memorandum dated 17 3 1994 has been issued whereby the mode of companynting the days during which a person has worked as a Casual Artiste in a particular month has been laid down.
Having regard to the said guidelines, a scheme was framed by the Directorate General, Doordarshan, vide office memorandum dated 9 6 1992, which received the approval of the Tribunal in order dated 14 2 1993 passed in OA No.
In accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Tribunal in the order dated 8 2 1991 as well as under the Scheme dated 9 6 1992 framed by the Directorate General, Doordarshan if relaxation for three years period had been given, the respondent would have been eligible for companysideration for regularisation on 9 6 1992.
Since the matters relate to the year 1992, the Tribunal shall take them up for disposal expeditiously and dispose of the same within a period of six months.
Shri Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that apart from the relaxation in the upper age limit, as permissible under para 6 of the Scheme for regularisation, the respondents are also entitled to claim the benefit of the Residents of Assam Relaxation of Upper Age Limit Rules, 1985, whereunder a general relaxation of 6 years in the upper age limit has been provided in respect of persons who have ordinarily resided in the State of Assam during the period 1 1 1980 to 15 8 1985.
and that in the said advertisement it has been expressly mentioned The age relaxation is admissible by 5 years for SC ST and general relaxation is admissible by 6 years for candidates residing in Assam during 1 1 1980 to 15 8 1985 after the Assam Accord Rules and up to 35 years for government servants.
In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has number companysidered the question whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the general relaxation of 6 years under the Residents of Assam Relaxation of Upper Age Limit Rules, 1985.
They sought regularisation on the basis of the Scheme for regularisation framed by the Directorate General, Doordarshan vide memorandum dated 9 6 1992.
The respondent has filed as Annexure R Z to his companynter affidavit dated 5 9 1994 the companyy of a letter dated 27 5 1994 from the Senior Administrative Officer Central Production center , Doordarshan to the Directorate General enclosing a statement companytaining details of the casual engagement of the respondent.
She was number companysidered eligible for such regularisation for the reason that at the time of her initial appointment she was overage by two years.
The review petition filed by the appellants against the said judgment of the Tribunal was dismissed by order dated 24 3 1994.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal by its judgment dated 16 12 1993, has held that the respondents were eligible for such companysideration and has directed that they should be companysidered for such regularisation under the Scheme for regularisation.
Shri A.S. Nambiar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the respondent was appointed as a Casual Artiste on 11 1 1989 and on that date her age was more than 27 years.
1493 of 1994 With regard to regularisation of Casual Artistes and Field Assistants employed with Doordarshan, the Central Administrative Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal had laid down certain guidelines in the order dated 8 2 1991 in OA No.
In case the respondents are given the benefit of the said general relaxation, they would fall within the upper age limit on 9 6 1992.
Since this aspect has number been companysidered by the Tribunal and it requires to be companysidered, the matters have to be remitted to the Tribunal for such companysideration.
5903 04 of 1994 The respondents are employed as Casual Floor Assistants Production Assistants in the Doordarshan Kendra at Gauhati.
The said statement shows that during the years 1989 91, the respondent had worked for more than 120 days.
She sought regular sation on the basis of the Scheme for regularisation framed by the Directorate General, Doordarshan vide memorandum dated 9 6 1992.
In these circumstances, we uphold the direction given by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment for companysidering the respondent for regularisation under the Scheme since after giving the relaxation of three years in the matter of the upper age limit, he was eligible for such regularisation.
The application submitted by the respondent has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 22 1 1993.
Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeals Nos.
5596 of 1993 The respondent was employed as a Production Assistant Casual Artiste in Doordarshan Kendra at New Delhi since 11 1 1989.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
894 of 1990.
No orders as to companyts.
The appellants have challenged the said view of the Tribunal.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
No order as to companyts.
The impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 16 12 1993 as well as the order dated 24 3 1994 are, therefore, set aside and the matters are remitted to the Tribunal for companysideration in the light of the provisions companytained in the Residents of Assam Relaxation of Upper Age Limit Rules, 1985.
As per the recruitment rules, viz.,
Shri A.S. Nambiar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has urged that the respondents were overage and even after giving relaxation in accordance with the Scheme dated 9 6 1992, the respondents were number eligible for companysideration for regularisation and that the Tribunal has erroneously held that they were eligible.
