Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 200 (ORI)

Aditya Narayan Das v. Union of India

2008-03-11

C.R.MOHAPATRA, M.R.MOHANTY

body2008
ORDER Per M. R. MOHANTY, VICE-CHAIRMAN (J) — Non-selection, of both the Applicants, as News-Reader-cum-Translator in All India Radio; is the subject matter in this case. 2. The guidelines, under Circular Dated 24.08.2005 (at Annexure-R/VIII to the Counter) requires basic qualification of the person (to be a News Reader-cum-Translator) to be as under :- 1. Graduate of a recognized University, 2. Proficiency in the language for which to be empanelled. 3. Having a voice of good quality suited to broad-casting, 4. Desirable, Degree/Diploma in journalism, experience in Journalism. 3. In the Advertisement for the post of News-Reader-cum-Translator of AIR/Cuttack it was notified that the candidate should be- (a) A graduate, (b) Should have command over regional language, (c) Should have interest in News and up to date affairs, (d) Should have a good voice (e) Additionally, should have Degree/Diploma in Journalism and experience in Journalism Strictly speaking, it appears that the Advertisement it was not in the same line as that of the Circular dated 24.08.2005. 4. It appears from the materials placed on record that some of the candidates were under qualified; so far Degree/Diplo¬ma in journalism were concerned. It has been stated that Respond¬ent Nos.7, 10 & 12 had no such qualification and yet they have been selected and engaged. When candidates with required qualifi¬cation were available (like the Applicants) less qualified per¬sons could not have been preferred. 5. Advertisement issued for AIR/Cuttack, required that the candidates should be a resident of Cuttack City. Such a condi¬tion, at the recruitment stage, was certainly bad and opposed to constitutional requirement. There could not have been a discrimi¬nation on the ground of residence. Of course, upon selection, a candidate may be asked to reside in a particular place; for which notices can be given in advance/in the Advertisement. It appears from the material placed on record that such a condition com¬pelled certain selected candidates (Respondent Nos. 7 & 8) to give false/in-correct statements. It was stated at the hearing that Respondent Nos. 7 & 8, who are also news-readers in “Door¬darshan/Bhubaneswar”, gave different address for Doordar¬shan/Bhubaneswar and AIR/Cuttack. 6. There were 113 candidates (including the Applicant) appeared in the written test, that was conducted in course of recruitment/selection. Out of them 43 candidates (including the Applicants) were called for voice-test. It was stated at the hearing that Respondent Nos. 7 & 8, who are also news-readers in “Door¬darshan/Bhubaneswar”, gave different address for Doordar¬shan/Bhubaneswar and AIR/Cuttack. 6. There were 113 candidates (including the Applicant) appeared in the written test, that was conducted in course of recruitment/selection. Out of them 43 candidates (including the Applicants) were called for voice-test. Out of them having been found suitable, 12 candidates (including the Applicant) were called to viva-voce; where-after only 09 candidates were selected and both the Applicants were kept out. 7. It is strange that the qualified candidates were kept-out in the final round (and less qualified candidates were se¬lected) without giving any weight-age to the Degree/Diploma of Journalism/experience; which ought to have been given. This case therefore is here by disposed of with a direction to the Respond¬ents to enlist the Applicants as News-Reader-cum-Translator by giving weight-age to their Degree/Diploma/Experience in Journal¬ism. Application disposed of.