JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint/absorb him in the post of Film/Video Editor in the Doordarshan Kendra, Agartala or any other Kendras w.e.f. 7.10.1997, i.e., the date of his initial engagement as casual artist along with other prayers. 2. Heard Mr. S. Talapatra, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Astt. SG for the respondents. 3. Briefly State, the petitioner is a graduate and had training in Video Editing from the assigned academy of Film and Television and had practical experience of ten years till the date of filing of this writ petition. Prior to obtaining the Diploma, he had practical experience of three years in the field. He has been working in the Doordarshan Kendra, Agartala as Casual Artist and discharging all duties and responsibilities of Video Editing. The petitioner has worked continuously for 600 days of booking as per record till 27.9.2000. But in reality the petitioner has been attending the Doordarshan Kendra, Agartala every day, i.e., 5 days in a week. In addition to that he has to work for overtime for completion of the programme, etc. The petitioner has been working for about 240 days in a year. The casual artists who have completed 206 days in case of officers observed 5 days a week have been given temporary status and they have been regularized whenever vacancies were there and such scheme of regularization is still continuing in the Doordarshan and other wings of Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India Ltd. The petitioner has fulfilled all the criteria for having the temporary status and for having his service regularized in the post of Video Editor. He made a representation on 10.1.2000 for his regularization to the post of Film/Video Editor in Doordarshan, but no action appears to have been taken by the respondents on the said representation. As per the existing norms and practice that has been followed in case of regularization of casual artist, the petitioner is entitled to be declared with a temporary status and also to be considered for regularization in the post of film and video editor. 4. As per the existing norms and practice that has been followed in case of regularization of casual artist, the petitioner is entitled to be declared with a temporary status and also to be considered for regularization in the post of film and video editor. 4. The petitioner earlier filed writ petition being WP(C) No. 379 of 2000 praying for a direction to the respondents to grant him initial temporary status and to regularize him in the post of Film/Video Editor with regular pay and other allowances as is entitled to the similarly situated employees along with other prayers and this Court on 28.3.2003 upon hearing the Learned Counsel of both sides disposed of the writ petition with the following direction: ...within three months from today the authority will pass final orders on the entitlement of the petitioner for regularization and in doing so the authority shall take into account the facts stated in the communication dated 22.2.2000 (Annexure-3). Until further order is passed by the authority, if the petitioner is in employment in the Doordarshan Kendra, Agartala as Film/Video Editor, he will be allowed to continue in service. Needless to say if the petitioner feels aggrieved by such order/orders as may be passed by the authority in terms of the present directions, it will be open for him to seek his legal remedies in accordance with the law. 5. The petitioner immediately communicated the said order to the respondent No. 3 herein on 10.4.2003 and the respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 8.7.2003 informed the petitioner that he is not covered by the regularization scheme dated 9.6.1992 and 17.3.1994 under which the eligibility of the casual artist of Doordarshan is determined. The casual artists engaged before 31.12.1991 only come under consideration for regularization and since the petitioner was engaged in 1997, he was declared not eligible for regularization. It was further stated that the two vacancies in the grade of film/video editor at Doordarshan Kendra, Agartala shown in the communication dated 22.2.2000, i.e., Annexure 3 to WP(C) No. 379 of 2000 would not change the status of the case of the petitioner for regularization. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer as stated supra. 6. The respondents contested the case by filing their counter-affidavit wherein they have denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in his writ petition. 7. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer as stated supra. 6. The respondents contested the case by filing their counter-affidavit wherein they have denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in his writ petition. 7. The respondents in their counter-affidavit contended, inter alia, that for recruitment in the post of Film/Video Editor the requisite qualification is three years Diploma in Video Editing from a recognized institution. But the petitioner has undergone a three months service course in a private unrecognized institute and his said certificate cannot be equivalent to three years diploma course in video editing. It is contended that as per Government of India, DOPT instructions and order granting of temporary status arise only in respect of casual workers engaged for doing Group-D work such as Peon, Messenger, etc. Since the petitioner has been engaged for doing Video Editing work he cannot come under the said scheme. Moreover, the said Government scheme of 1990 has been held by the Apex Court as one time scheme and not on-going scheme, it is further contended that as per regularization scheme dated 9.6.1992 only the casual artists who were engaged before 31.12.1991 and have requisite qualification and experience in terms of Recruitment Rules, have been considered and since the petitioner was engaged much after the cut off date, i.e., 31.12.1991, he was not eligible for consideration. 8. Mr. Talpatra, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while supporting the case of the writ petitioner would contend that this Court vide order dated 28.3.2003 passed in WP(C) No. 379 of 2000 directed the respondents for passing final order on the entitlement of the petitioner for regularization of his service taking note of Annexure III to that writ petition within three months from the date of order, but the authority concerned, i.e., the respondent No. 3 herein rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that he is not covered by the regularization scheme dated 9.6.1992 and 17.3.1994 under which the eligibility of casual artist of Doordarshan like the petitioner is determined and the casual artists engaged before 31.12.1991 only came under consideration for regularization. Since the petitioner was engaged in 1997, he was declared not eligible for regularization. Since the petitioner was engaged in 1997, he was declared not eligible for regularization. But the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner in view of Annexure III of WP(C) No. 379 of 2000 as directed by this Court. He also contended that the regularization scheme dated 9.6.1992 was considered by the High Court of Delhi in a similar nature of case where the respondent-Prasar Bharati also raised the same question. But the High Court of Delhi considering the rival submission of the parties and taking note of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT'), Principal Bench in O.A. No. 1359 and 1369 of 1993 filed by one Neeraj Bhanot and another held that the cut off date, i.e., 31.12.1991 fixed in the scheme framed in 1992 was not the ultimate deadline and that those appointed after this date were also entitled to for consideration for regularization of their services against the remaining vacancies after accommodating all those who have been engaged prior to 31.12.1991. According to him, as admittedly the aforesaid order of the High Court of Delhi has not been challenged by the respondent-Prasar Bharati the same holds the field and the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid decision. His further contention was that non-consideration of the letter dated 22.2.2000 (Annexure III to the earlier, writ petition) wherein the Director of Agartala Doordarshan Kendra informed the Director General of Doordarshan the incumbency position relating to the post of Film/Video Editor and also proposed for regularization of service of the petitioner is nothing but an unseasonable and arbitrary one. He contended that while the respondents rejected the prayer of the petitioner for regularization of his service after consideration of the order of this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, nowhere stated that the petitioner is not eligible for the post of Film/Video Editor as per the Recruitment Rules. Learned senior Counsel tried to convince this Court that though at the time of engagement as a casual video editor the petitioner had no experience or training, but during his last eleven years' continuous service as video editor in the Doordarshan Kendra, Agartala he has gathered vast knowledge and experience in the line which can fulfil the three years' experience as required in alternative to Diploma/Degree in editing. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not qualified for absorption in the post of film video editor and/or for regularization as sought for. 9. Per contra, Mr. Biswas, learned Asstt. S.G. appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner being a casual worker and engaged after 31.12.1991 would not come within the purview of the regularization scheme of 1992. He contended that the scheme is clear and specific and there is no arbitrariness in the said scheme. His further contention was that the aforesaid regularization scheme has no application so far the present petitioner is concerned and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Lakhpat Singh Rawat was followed by mistake and the court cannot ask the respondents to provide the benefit of the scheme to the petitioner by way of committing the same error or mistake, which he is not entitled to. In response to the contention of Mr. Talpatra that the judgment of the CAT in Neeraj Bhanot being not challenged, rather implemented by the respondents, the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the said decision of the CAT as the petitioner was also engaged by the respondents after the cut off date prescribed in the scheme, i.e., 31.12.1991 like Neeraj Bhanot and Lakhpat Singh, he contended that acceptance and/or implementation of the judgment of CAT in case of some persons like Neeraj Bhanot will not come in the way of the respondents resisting the similar petition filed by other employees in the public interest in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683 wherein the Apex Court considering the fact of the case noted in the judgment that the circumstances of non-filing of the appeals by the State in some similar matters or the rejection of some SLPs in limine by it in some other similar matters by itself cannot be held as a bar against the State in filing an SLP or SLPs in other similar matter(s) where it is considered on behalf of the State that non-filing of such SLP or SLPs and pursuing them is likely to seriously jeopardise the interest of the State or public interest. He also relied on the case of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and Ors. He also relied on the case of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 709 wherein the Apex Court relying on Digambar (supra), particularly para 26 of the said law report noted, inter alia, that when similar matters subsequently crop up and the magnitude of the financial implications is realized, the State is not prevented or barred from challenging the subsequent decisions or resisting subsequent writ petitions, even though judgment in a case involving similar issue was allowed to reach finality in the case of others. Para 26 of the said judgment is reproduced herein under: 26. The said observations apply to this case. A particular judgment of the High Court may not be challenged by the State where the financial repercussions are negligible or where the appeal is barred by limitation. If may also not be challenged due to negligence or oversight of the dealing officers or on account of wrong legal advice, or on account of the non-comprehension of the seriousness or magnitude of the issue involved. However, when similar matters subsequently crop up and the magnitude of the financial implications is realized, the State is not prevented or barred from challenging the subsequent decisions or resisting subsequent writ petitions, even though judgment in a case involving similar issue was allowed to reach finality in the case of others. Of course, the position would be viewed differently, if petitioners plead and prove that the State had adopted a "pick-and-choose" method only to exclude petitioners on account of mala fides or ulterior motives. Be that as it may. On the facts and circumstances, neither the principle of res judicata nor the principle of estoppel is attracted. The administrative law principles of legitimate expectation or fairness in action are also not attracted. Therefore, the fact that in some cases the validity of the circular dated 29.7.1999 (corresponding to the Defence Ministry circular dated 11.9.2001) has been upheld and that decision has attained finality will not come in the way of the State defending or enforcing its circular dated 11.9.2001. 10. He contended that a film/video editor has to be appointed in accordance with the provision of recruitment rules by way of following the established procedure of public employment. The petitioner was not engaged/employed after following the proper selection process. 10. He contended that a film/video editor has to be appointed in accordance with the provision of recruitment rules by way of following the established procedure of public employment. The petitioner was not engaged/employed after following the proper selection process. He finally contended that on the basis of a casual employment continuation for a long time does not create any right for regularization insofar as the engagement way on specific terms and condition and the petitioner was also aware that his casual engagement would not entitle him for claiming regular appointment to the post of film/video editor. 11. To establish his aforesaid contention, Mr. Biswas placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein the Apex Court in paras 12 and 43 observed as under: 12. In spite of this scheme, there may be occasions when the sovereign State or its instrumentalities will have to employ persons, in posts which are temporary, on daily wages, as additional hands or taking them in without following the required procedure, to discharge the duties in respect of the posts that are sanctioned and that are required to be filed in terms of the relevant procedure established by the Constitution or for work in temporary posts or projects that are not needed permanently. This right of the Union or of the State Government cannot but be recognized and there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits such engaging of persons temporarily or on daily wages, to meet the needs of the situation. But the fact that such engagements are resorted to cannot be used to defeat the very scheme of public employment nor can a court say that the Union or the State Governments do not have the right to engage persons in various capacities for a duration or until the work in a particular project is completed. Once this right of the Government is recognized and the mandate of the constitutional requirement for public employment is respected, there cannot be much difficulty in coming to the conclusion that if is ordinarily not proper for the courts whether acting under Article 226of the Constitution or under Article 32 of the Constitution, to direct absorption in permanent employment of those who have been engaged without following a due process of selection as envisaged by the constitutional scheme. 43. 43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. It it is a contractual appointment the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee, had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of the judgment he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. Merely because an employee, had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of the judgment he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitled to relief it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 12. He also contended that court cannot direct the respondents either to appoint or to absorb the petitioner in the post of film/video editor merely on the ground that he has been continuing for a long time on casual basis. 13. In response to the submission of the learned Asstt. S.G., Mr. Talpatra would submit that the case of Col B.J. Akkara (Retd.) (supra) has no direct bearing in the present case as the fact of that case is quite different from the case in hand as that case relates to pension matter of employees. More so, for supporting the case of the petitioner and to distinguish the case of Umadevi (3) (supra) he contended that the petitioner was appointed on casual basis after appearing in interview as per prescribed procedure. Hence, he may be regularized in view of the observation of the Apex Court in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (supra), which is reproduced herein under: 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and then employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed The process must be set in motion within six months from this date We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 14. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant records as available question arises for determination is whether a casual worker has a right to be regularized or absorbed in a vacant post for mere continuous working against the said post. Before deciding the aforesaid question, it would be proper for this Court to notice Annexure-3 of the earlier writ petition as well as the qualification prescribe in the Recruitment Rules for the post of film video editor. For better appreciation the same are reproduced herein under: PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA DOORDARSHAN KENDRA :: AGARTALA No. To The Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of India, (kind attention Shri Darshan Lal; DDA-byname) Directorate General of Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001. Sub: Regularisation of Casual Artists. Ret: Directorate O.M. No. 4(29)/99-SI, Dated 5.1.2000 Sir, The requisite information only in the category of Film/Video Editor is furnished in the enclosed prescribed pro forma I, II, III. In this connection it is stated that no casual artists have been engaged against the vacancies in the following categories of post as sought for by the Directorate under reference. Sl. No. Name of Post Sanctioned Vacancy Remarks 01. Production Assistant 12 1 02. Floor Manager 02 *1 * shifted to DDK, Srinagar 03. In this connection it is stated that no casual artists have been engaged against the vacancies in the following categories of post as sought for by the Directorate under reference. Sl. No. Name of Post Sanctioned Vacancy Remarks 01. Production Assistant 12 1 02. Floor Manager 02 *1 * shifted to DDK, Srinagar 03. Floor Assistant 08 1 04. Film/Video Editor 03 2 Information is furnished in the enclosed prescribed format. 05. Scenic Designer - - 06. Carpenter 02 - 07. Painter 02 1 08. Tailor 01 - End. As above Yours faithfully, Sd/-illigible (Y.N. JAUHARI) DIRECTOR ...OF THE KENDRA NAME OF THE POST: Film/Video Editor Vacancy Position SANCTIONED FILLED VACANT 3 1 2 II. Incumbency Position Sl. No. Incumbent's name Date of birth Date of appointment Sinced when posted 01. Sh. N. Ashok Kumar 6.6.1967 27.11.1987 31.10.1991 III. Eligible Casuals (till date) Sl. No. Name of casual artists Date of birth Date of first engagement Regularised / not regularised Date of regularisation 01. Tapan Roy Barman 20.3.1970 7.10.1998 Not regularized To be regularized 02. SankarDebnath 2.1.1975 27.12.1999 -do- -do- 03. NitinChaturvedi 18.7.1976 15.6.1999 -do- -do- Sd/- illegible Doordarshan Kendra, Agartala. Name of Post Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits Film-Editor ESSENTIAL (i) Matriculation or equivalent (ii) Degree/Diploma in Film Editing from a Recognized Institute, or 3 year experience of film/video editing in a film/video studio. ……. 15. On perusal of Annexure 3 as quoted herein above, it appears that there was an attempt on the part of the respondents far regularization of services of the casual artists like the petitioner in the year 2000 which would be evident from the response of the Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Agartala to the office memorandum dated 5.1.2000 and the name of the petitioner was also proposed for such regularization against the vacant post of film/video editor and admittedly when the authority considered the case of the petitioner as per order of this Court dated 28.3.2003 in WP(C) No. 379 of 2000 took note of Annexure 3 to the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Talapatra that at the time of rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for regularization of his service, the respondents did not consider Annexure 3 to the earlier writ petition has no bearing. 16. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Talapatra that at the time of rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for regularization of his service, the respondents did not consider Annexure 3 to the earlier writ petition has no bearing. 16. Now, let us see whether the regularization scheme of 1992 has any application in the case of the petitioner in view of the judgment of the CAT in Neeraj Bhanot (supra) considering which the High Court of Delhi in the case of Lakhpat Singh Rawat (CW 2612/2003), a co-petitioner in the case of Neeraj Bhanot noted that regularization of service will be done under the scheme of those persons who were appointed prior to 31.12.1991 and after that if there are any more vacancies available, the same shall be filled up by the persons who were subsequently engaged after 1991 and accordingly, the High Court of Delhi allowed the prayer of Lakhpat Rawat for regularization of his Service in the post of casual production assistant as the Union respondent did not challenge the order of CAT directing regularization of service of Neeraj Bhanot even though he was engaged after 31.12.1991. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner was engaged on casual basis on 7.10.1997 and at that time he was not eligible for the post of Film/Video Editor, as he did not obtain three years' diploma in video editing from a recognized institution, which is the requisite qualification for appointment in the post of film/video editor though during his tenure of eleven years service on casual basis in Doordarshan Kendra, Agartala he acquired experience of more than three years and it cannot be said that at present the petitioner is lacking of his experience as required. But mere acquiring experience while in service does not entitle the petitioner for his absorption and/or regularization in the post of film/video editor as he was engaged on casual basis without following the prescribed procedure of regular public employment. 17. In view of Umadevi (3) (supra) as well as Digambar (supra), ratio of which was followed by the Apex Court in Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) (supra), this Court is of further opinion that the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Lakhpat Singh Rawat (supra) in view of the decision of CAT in Neeraj Bhanot (supra) cannot be treated as a precedent. Hence, this Court is unable to accept the submission of Mr. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) (supra), this Court is of further opinion that the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Lakhpat Singh Rawat (supra) in view of the decision of CAT in Neeraj Bhanot (supra) cannot be treated as a precedent. Hence, this Court is unable to accept the submission of Mr. Talpatra, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 18. It appears from record as available before this Court that two posts of film/video editor are lying vacant since 2000 and the authority without filling up those posts taking benefit of service of casual employees like the petitioner. Now, question remains for answering whether those vacancies can be filled up by way of regularization, and or absorption of the petitioner considering the service rendered by him in Doordarshan Kendra, Agartala where he has gathered experience as required for the said post? 19. By this time it is well settled that it is the prerogative of the executive whether any vacant post will be filled up or not considering the necessity. Court cannot direct the authority to fill up any particular post by any particular person. This Court is unable to see how the petitioner can be granted any relief as sought for even when he has been rendering his service on casual basis for long time after the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) (supra) wherein the Apex Court disapproved and deprecated the direction of various High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution for regularization of service of casual employees who entered in service bypassing the prescribed procedure of public employment. However, this Court hope and trust that the respondent-authorities would consider the case of the petitioner afresh considering that by this time he has acquired the necessary experience as required for appointment in the post of film/video editor and the respondents may also consider his prayer for relaxation of age, if any made at the time of applying for the post. The respondents are directed not to disengage the petitioner till regular vacancies of film/video editor at Doordarshan Kendra, Agartala are filled up. 20. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.