JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. It was more than four decades back that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that: “It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largess including award of jobs, contracts quotas, licences etc. must be confined and whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. (Refer: Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 266 ).” 2. The above observation has not at all been observed or rather observed more in its breach by the respondents as would be evidently clear from the further discussion, however, before that, certain factual aspects need to be noticed. 3. The petitioner after having completed his Master degree in Journalism and Mass Communication, appeared for the screening test held by respondent No. 2 for Anchor/ Program Presenter on 16.5.2013 and on being declared successful, was issued contract letter on 23.5.2013. The petitioner worked as Anchor/Program Presenter in the Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla, but was not assigned any work after 14.8.2014 and it is his specific case that even though the work was not assigned to him, similar works continued to be assigned to other persons, who had not even passed the audition test. This constrained the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Right to Information Act. This constrained the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Right to Information Act. However, when no fruitful and meaningful information was forthcoming from the side of the respondents, he has been constrained to file the instant writ petition for the grant of following reliefs: (i) That the functionary of the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to provide the program anchoring/presentation work to the petitioner as per Annexure PB. (ii) That the functionary of the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to engage the anchors who are not qualified any audition test to program anchoring/presentation. (iii) That any other order/direction which this Court deems fit may kindly be passed against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to hold the inquiry into the day to day work of Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla and take action against the erring official as per law.” 4. The respondents have filed the reply wherein preliminary submissions have been made to the effect that the petitioner is neither permanent employee nor a contract employee of the replying respondents and, therefore, has no right to claim continuous grant of work despite having poor performance for all times to come in routine. It is further averred that the grant of work is subject to satisfactory performance as per the norms, standards and principles adopted and required for better performance of both i.e. the concerned person as well as the institution broadcasting the programmes. The performance is to be evaluated by the person having the experience in the concerned field. The job of Anchor/Programme Comparer is an Artistic job requiring different kind of special consideration as per assignment which cannot be bound in the boundaries of fixed mechanical straightjacket formula. The audition and selection of Anchors/Programme Comparer cannot be restricted in specific guidelines mathematically, but the same is based upon nature and desirability of particular programme depending upon the requirement of the said Programme, therefore, it is not feasible to have hard and fast specific guidelines for audition and selection of the Anchors/Programme Comparers. 5. It is after keeping in view the various demanding requirements based on situation and type of programme that the programmes are allotted and, therefore, there cannot be any fixed procedure or qualifications to conduct audition for selection of Anchor/Programme Comparer. 5. It is after keeping in view the various demanding requirements based on situation and type of programme that the programmes are allotted and, therefore, there cannot be any fixed procedure or qualifications to conduct audition for selection of Anchor/Programme Comparer. The frequency of auditions to be conducted also depends upon the requirement of various programmes. The Artists are engaged as Anchor/Programme Comparer or for other Artistic jobs on trial basis. Sometimes these persons are engaged on the basis of their performance in public functions and programmes. Whereas, sometimes basis can be on spot valuation and witness of performance or even recommendation of prominent personalities but based on performance in public functions and programmes. Therefore, the engagement of the Anchor/Programme Comparer cannot be compared as a matter of right for indefinite continuance period only on the basis of academic qualifications or on the basis of selection in audition test, but the performance has to be upto the mark as per the requirement of the programme. 6. That apart, the persons once considered to be fit amongst one set of artists, may not be considered so in another set of artists having better artistic qualities. Therefore, one cannot be said to be suitable forever in all eventualities. There cannot be definite fixed rule for continuation and discontinuation of an Artist except comparative valuation of qualities of artist to be adjudged on the basis of performance from time to time. 7. Lastly, it is averred that since the performance of the petitioner was not found upto the mark to be the high quality and despite the petitioner had been given chances regularly with the hope of better performance, he failed to do so and, therefore, has not been found to be considered for future assignments by the experts. It is also averred that during the period of his engagement, there were verbal complaints regarding misbehavior, indiscipline and lack of interest against the petitioner which distracted the programme producer to discontinue his anchoring. The petitioner was instructed orally to improve his performance and behavior time and again. 8. In rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner has averred that he had presented about 40 programs as Program Presenter and during that period he was never told/asked by any of the official of the respondents that his work and performance or both were unsatisfactory. 8. In rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner has averred that he had presented about 40 programs as Program Presenter and during that period he was never told/asked by any of the official of the respondents that his work and performance or both were unsatisfactory. It is further averred that there is no such working culture in the respondent-organization where its officials evaluate the performance of the Program Presenter like the petitioner. The working of the respondent is absolutely arbitrary as the respondents assigned the work of program presenters only to those who fall in line with them despite their performance. It is specifically averred that the officials of the respondents only work and manage its affairs in autocratic manner as there exists no system to assess the performance or analyze the performance of the program presenters as would be clear from the information sought under the Right to Information Act. Further averments regarding the petitioner having been instructed orally or in writing to improve his performance or behaviour, has been specifically denied. I have heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the material placed on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent is a statutory body constituted under the Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India. It is more than settled that the action of the public authorities are amenable to the judicial review and, therefore, the State must act validly for discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. Therefore, at this stage the question is whether the respondents have in fact any reasonable criteria by way of Rules, Regulations, and Guidelines for casual employees and workers or is their engagement dependant upon the sheer whims and caprices and totally unguided and unbridled discretion of the respondents. 10. Therefore, at this stage the question is whether the respondents have in fact any reasonable criteria by way of Rules, Regulations, and Guidelines for casual employees and workers or is their engagement dependant upon the sheer whims and caprices and totally unguided and unbridled discretion of the respondents. 10. The necessity of framing such question arises on account of the fact that in the application submitted by the petitioner on 4.2.2014 under Right to Information Act (for short ‘Act’) with respect to six items, the information thereto was given separately by the Deputy Director General (P) and by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer on behalf of the Deputy Director General (P) and the same is reflected in the under-mentioned comparative table as under:- Application under RTI Reply by Deputy Director General (P) Reply by Drawing and Disbursing Officer for Dy. Director General (P) 1. What are the criteria/rules and regulations/guidelines set by Parsar Bharti with reference to the all casual employees and workers to work in various Doordarshan Kendras in programming and news wing? Provide detailed copy, especially Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla (H.P.) 1 & 2 – It is intimated that there are no guidelines for such books in specific, in record 1. As per office record there are no specific regulations and guidelines for casual employees and workers to work in programme section. The guidelines regarding News Readers and Stringers have been issued (Total No. of pages 3 nos. 2. What are the guidelines/ rules and regulations/ instructions of Parsar Bharti in case of casual employees and workers remuneration working in various Doordarshan Kendras? Provide certified copy, especially Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla (H.P.) --- 2. The fee structure has been issued by the Directorate regarding the payment to persons booked on assignment basis (Total No. of pages 50 Nos.) 3. What are the guidelines/ instructions of Parsar Bharti rules and regulations/ and remuneration amount to be paid to casual anchors/ Program presenters working in various Doordarshan Kendras (Especially Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla (H.P.) 3. Anchors are paid a per fee structure issued by Directorate of Doordarshan. 3. As per fee structure of Directorate as above. 4. What are the guidelines/ instructions of Parsar Bharti regarding to appear in the programmes of various Doordarshan Kendras as Guests/Experts and to give money to those Guest? (Especially Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla H.P.) 4. No instruction/ guideline in specific as per record. 4. 3. As per fee structure of Directorate as above. 4. What are the guidelines/ instructions of Parsar Bharti regarding to appear in the programmes of various Doordarshan Kendras as Guests/Experts and to give money to those Guest? (Especially Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla H.P.) 4. No instruction/ guideline in specific as per record. 4. The participants of various programmes are invited as per programme requirement and fee is paid as per Directorate fee structure. 5. What is age limit of casual anchor/program presenter set by Prasar Bharti? Provide certified copy thereof. Especially Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla, H.P. 5 & 6 – No specific order as per record. No order is there in record regarding age limit of casual anchor or presenter for programmes. The instructions regarding news presenters, news readers is mentioned in the guidelines as above. 6. Provide the certified copy of recruitment rules set by Prasar Bharti for various Doordahrshan Kendra in respect of casual anchor/program Presenters and casual clerical workers with the information that whether a casual anchor/ casual clerical worker is entitled to do work of different nature and vice-versa --- 6. No recruitment rules set by Prasar Bharti are in record in respect of casual anchor/programme presenters and casual clerical workers. 11. Thereafter another application under Right to Information Act was submitted on 22.7.2014, which was replied to by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the respondents for and on behalf of the Dy. Director General (P) and the comparative table is as under:- Application under RTI Act 2005 Reply by Drawing and Disbursing Officer for Dy. Director General (P) 1. In the month of June and July 2014 starting from 1st June to 20th July provide me the list of those individuals who compere/anchort the following programs: (a) Umang (a) Umang Mr. Owasis Khan, Ku. Shiwani Pnatu, Ku. Vihbu Gupta, Smt. Kiran Bala, Shri Jagdish Sharma. (b) Sawasth Jivan (b) Swasth Jeevan Shri Jagjeevan Sharma, Smt. Varsha Chauhan, Shri Amit Sharma, Dr. Vimal Bharati, Shri Vijay Chaudhary, Shri Inderjeet Singh Duggal, Shri Gaurav Kapoor, Dr. Vikas Sharma. (c) Janwani (c) Janvani Shri Chetan Sharma, Shri Ajay Shrivastava (d) Aaj Ki Kulakaat (d) Aaj Ki Mulakaat Ms. Dhara Saraswati (e) Krshi Darshan (e) Krishi Darshan Shri Anil Joshi, Smt. Krishna Sharma, Dr. Rajiv Mehta, Shri Pravesh Jassal, Shri Kamal Kant Shukla (f) Manzil (Provde certified copy) (f) Manzil Shri Harsh Kathait, Smt. Dimple Sharma 2. Vikas Sharma. (c) Janwani (c) Janvani Shri Chetan Sharma, Shri Ajay Shrivastava (d) Aaj Ki Kulakaat (d) Aaj Ki Mulakaat Ms. Dhara Saraswati (e) Krshi Darshan (e) Krishi Darshan Shri Anil Joshi, Smt. Krishna Sharma, Dr. Rajiv Mehta, Shri Pravesh Jassal, Shri Kamal Kant Shukla (f) Manzil (Provde certified copy) (f) Manzil Shri Harsh Kathait, Smt. Dimple Sharma 2. In the period starting from 1st June to 20th July, 2014 who were those individuals that didn’t passed/cleared the auditions and yet given the right to anchor/compere the above mentioned programs. (provide certified copy) No specific record. The anchors are booked on trial basis also as and when required. 3. Has Zinat manta and Vibhu gupta both compere/anchor of Doordarshan Shimla, qualified/passed any auditions/test for anchor/compere the live programs? If yet, provide the certified copy in which auditions/test they both appeared and their selection letter for anchoring/compering. As per record Ms. Vibhu Gupta did not appear as a candidate for this audition. She participated in programmes as anchor on trial basis. Ms. Zeenat Manta is a selected person of previous audition held in the year 2005. 4. Under what rule or guideline any regular/permanent government employee except parser bharti is allowed to anchor/compere a live program or news bulletin? If there is any rule/guideline of Prasar Bharti for various Doordarshan Kendra Provide the certified copy or is it an arbitrary decision of Program Executive/ Authorities. No specific instructions/guidelines, in particular, in record. 5. Who are those persons that are responsible for giving duties/ bookings to anchor or compere the program to such individuals who had not even qualify the auditions? Is this is not a case of “abuse of Authority” under the Anti Corruption Act and hence a fit case to be given to Vigilance Enquiry? As per office procedure. 12. Not only this, the petitioner yet again sought information vide application dated 2.5.2016 and was supplied the same on 1.6.2016 and the comparative table of the same is as under:- Application under RTI Act, 2005 Reply by Drawing and Disbursing Officer for Dy. Director General (P) Q.1. Provide the certified copy of the advertisement including qualifications for selection of anchor/programme compeers of which auditions were conducted on dated 16.5.2013. Q.1. Copy enclosed. Q.2. While assigning the joining letter to anchors and programme compeers does Parsar Bharti mentions the fact that engagement depends upon the performance of the candidate? Director General (P) Q.1. Provide the certified copy of the advertisement including qualifications for selection of anchor/programme compeers of which auditions were conducted on dated 16.5.2013. Q.1. Copy enclosed. Q.2. While assigning the joining letter to anchors and programme compeers does Parsar Bharti mentions the fact that engagement depends upon the performance of the candidate? If yes, provide a single copy of that joining letter given to any individual. Q.2. Copy enclosed. Q.3. In the case of Owais Khan vs. Parsar Bharti and Others, CWP No. 3675/2015 the Programme Executive DDK, Shimla, in its reply have mention at para 5 that artists are engaged on the basis of their performance in public functions/spot evaluation/witness of performance/recommendation of prominent personalities. Provide me the list of individuals who have been selected using the above mentioned criteria clearly mentioning the basis of their selection. Q.3. There are no specific hard guidelines regarding selection of anchors as this Presentation is of artistic nature. There is no specific compilation of list. The applicant may give the specific names of the persons so engaged and for the purpose the applicant is also permitted to inspect the record of these persons during any working hours at DDK, Shimla and may specify the exact information required so that it can be supplied after due assessment and after payment of cost in preparing the same. Q.4. Provide me the photocopy of comment of experts in cases where the anchor is denied programmes for want of unsatisfactory performance. Q.4. Does not come under RTI Act being personal in nature and confidential in respect of experts; if exposed may cause threats in personal life. Q.5. In the case of Owais Khan vs. Parsar Bharti and Others, CWP No. 3675/2015 the Programme Executive DDK, Shimla, Ms. Dhara Saraswati in her reply submitted to the Hon’ble High Court at para 8 has mentioned “It is submitted that performance of the petitioner as stated hereinabove was not upto the mark and there were adverse remarks and observations of the programme producers with respect to misbehavior/ indiscipline and lack of interest.” Provide me the documentary proof of all the adverse remarks and observation of all the programme producers certified by the Director DDK, Shimla. Q.5. As above i.e. Point No. 4. 13. Q.5. As above i.e. Point No. 4. 13. It would be evident from all the information's (if at all they can be termed as information) that the respondents have categorically admitted that there are no instructions/ rules, regulations/guidelines of Prasar Bharti with reference to casual employees and workers to work in various Doordarshan Kendra in Programmes and News Wing or with regard to their remuneration. That apart, there are no Rules or guidelines under which any Government employee is allowed to Anchor/live programme of news bulletin. Further, there are no rules or guidelines of the Prasar Bharti for various Doordarshan Kendras. 14. The respondents being a ‘State’ is duty bound to frame the Rules/Regulations/ Guidelines or procedures whatever be their nomenclature which must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, fanciful and unjust. Right to fair treatment is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. Exercise of unbridled and uncanalised discretionary power impinges upon the right of the citizen; vesting of discretion is no wrong provided it is exercised purposively judiciously and without prejudice. Wider the discretion, the greater the chances of abuse. Absolute discretion is destructive of freedom, than of man’s other inventions. Absolute discretion marks the beginning of the end of the liberty. 15. However, what is shocking is the fact that when the petitioner vide his application dated 2.5.2016 asked for a photocopy of the comments of experts where the Anchor had been denied programmes for want of unsatisfactory performance, the same was denied to him on the ground that the information sought did not fall within the purview of the RTI Act being personal in nature and confidential in respect of experts; and if exposed may cause threats in personal life. 16. To say the least, the respondents have exhibited total lack of knowledge of the provisions of the Right to Information Act or have deliberately attempted to mislead the petitioner. 17. Be that as it may, the Right to Information Act was promulgated to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 18. 18. The very object and purpose of the Right to Information Act is to make the working of public authorities transparent and accountable. For that purpose, all information held by a public authority is accessible except to the extent such information is expressly exempted from disclosure as provided in the RTI Act itself. In other words, unless the public authority is able to demonstrate why the information held by it should be exempted from disclosure, it should normally be disclosed. The burden, therefore, is entirely on the public authority to show why the information sought from it should not be disclosed. An employee of a public authority is entitled to know all the details concerning himself under the RTI Act, including the details concerning the denial of allotment of work, discrimination in allotment of work etc. unless the public authority is able to show that such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the Act, which reads as under: “Section 8: Exemption from disclosure of Information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to given any citizen:- (e) information available to a person, in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the large public justifies the disclosure of such information.” 19. The refusal to disclose information in respect of experts on the ground if exposed may cause threats in personal life is not only fallacious but is misconceived. The petitioner already knows, who officers are and, therefore, there is no question of there being any threat to their lives. Under Section 8 (1) (e) where information can be furnished without compromising or affecting confidentiality and identity, it has to be supplied and the bar under Section 8 (1) (e) cannot be invoked. Similarly, the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) is not at all attracted. The disclosure of the information to the petitioner concerning himself can hardly be said to be an unwarranted invasion of his privacy. 20. Similarly, the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) is not at all attracted. The disclosure of the information to the petitioner concerning himself can hardly be said to be an unwarranted invasion of his privacy. 20. Interestingly, when the case came up for final hearing, it was the official of the respondents who herself candidly admitted that the reply to the queries raised by the petitioner in his application under RTI Act, were not happily worded and had sought three weeks’ time to place on record the relevant rules/instructions/guidelines etc. regarding the working of the Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla as would be evident from the order passed on 17.8.2017 which reads thus: “Ms. Dhara Saraswati, Program Executive, Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla is present in person. She has candidly admitted that the replies to the queries raised by the petitioner in his application under RTI Act, are not very happily worded. She prays for and is granted three weeks’ time to place on record the relevant rules/instructions/guidelines etc. regarding the working of the Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla.” 21. It is in compliance to the aforesaid directions that the respondents have thereafter filed the affidavit alongwith so called rules/regulations/guidelines etc. In the affidavit so filed, it would be noticed that the respondents have placed on record the extracts of Sections VI and VIII of certain guidelines (the name whereof has not been spelt out in the affidavit). 22. Section VI relates to engagement of outsiders on assignment basis and reads thus: “SECTION VI ENGAGEMENT OF OUTSIDERS ON ASSIGNMENT BASIS 4.6.1 Doordarshan Kendras may have to engage persons against vacancy of sanctioned strength or against vacancies due to the production staff proceeding on leave, training or deputation. Such engagement of outsiders on assignment basis should be resorted to in very rare and exceptional cases to meet urgent programme exigencies. 4.6.2. Each Kendra should prepare a panel of suitable persons every year in different categories for engagement on assignment basis and persons included in the panel should be engaged by rotation as per service need. 4.6.3. For preparing the panel, applications should be invited from persons fulfilling the prescribed age limit and qualifications relevant to the vacant post by advertising in the press or TV etc. The Selection Committee should be constituted with Director, Dy. Director (Prog.) and Dr. Director of Admn. (or Admn. Officer in his absence) and selection of candidates should be finalized. 4.6.3. For preparing the panel, applications should be invited from persons fulfilling the prescribed age limit and qualifications relevant to the vacant post by advertising in the press or TV etc. The Selection Committee should be constituted with Director, Dy. Director (Prog.) and Dr. Director of Admn. (or Admn. Officer in his absence) and selection of candidates should be finalized. While considering the applications those already included in the previous panels may also be considered. 4.6.4. The procedure of selection would include not only interview but also audition and camera test wherever necessary. 4.6.5. The Selection Committee may prepare a panel of persons 4 times the estimated persons likely to be engaged on an average per day. 4.6.6. Persons included in the panel should be offered casual assignment on rotation basis for not more than 10 days a month. 4.6.7. While engaging the persons on assignment basis it should be made clear to them in writing that their working on such basis would not confer on them any claim for regularization or absorption in Doordarshan. This should be made clear while inviting their applications through press or Television. 4.6.8. In case of those persons who are engaged frequently, two vouching certificates may be obtained at the time of initial engagement. If a Kendra Director has the slightest suspicion as to the integrity of any such artist, the latter should not be engaged until a verification report has been obtained on him. (Authority) DG, Doordarshan Memo No. 1/2/85-SI dated 11.1.85 and 13.5.85.” 23. As regards Section VIII, the same relates to Casual Participants and reads thus: “SECTION VIII CASUAL PARTICIPANTS (Including Music, Dance and Drama Artists) 4.8.1 Procedure for engaging casual participants: The programme plan which is usually prepared on a quarterly basis should invariably indicate the names of participants, artists, talkers and performers. This should be got approved by the Head of the Kendra sufficiently in advance of the date of recording/ telecast. 4.8.2. (i) After the programme plan is approved by the Head of the Kendra, the respective Producer/Programme Executive would put the contents of the plan in a form proposal in the prescribed form DD-P-32 for approval of Assistant Station Director/DDP. Thereafter, contract should be prepared on the basis of approved proposals. The date of telecast should be indicated as far as possible in the contract for pre-recorded programmes. Thereafter, contract should be prepared on the basis of approved proposals. The date of telecast should be indicated as far as possible in the contract for pre-recorded programmes. The producer or programme executive should initial each page of every contract in token of their having checked the typed contract with the approved proposal. (ii) At the time of signing the contract the officer concerned should put his full signature on all the sheets of the contract after verifying that the amount noted therein agrees with the approved proposals and initial against each entry relating to the contract in the Contract. Issue Register. (iii) The office copy of the contract will remain in the custody of the Programme section till such time acceptance is received from the participant. 4.8.3. Receipt of acceptances from the participants should be noted in the contract issue register. The acceptances received should be verified with the office copies of the contracts to see that both agree and certificate to that effect recorded by Producer/PEX. Both the office copies and acceptances should then be sent to the accounts section for preparation of payment. 4.8.4. Payment to casual participants: Doordarshan Kendras have been authorized to pay fee to artists according to a prescribed rate structure. The latest rates which have come into force from 1st November, 1985, have been circulated vide DG, DD Memo No. 13/5/84-PII dated 3.10.1985 (Annexure VIII). Wherever a re-telecast fee is prescribed, the details of pre-recording should be entered into the register for payments for re-telecast (form DD-A27) and payment arranged as per procedure. 4.8.5. Terms of payment to casual participants: Payment is made by cheque in respect of amount Rs. 10/- and above. Cheque should be prepared w.r.t. the acceptance by the cheque writer and sent to the accountant who should check them before getting them signed by the drawing and disbursing officer. Note: In exceptional and hard cases where the enforcement of this rule of payment by cheque causes hardship to the artists concerned, the Heads of offices are permitted to make the payments in cash from their permanent advances to blind, infirm, rural and women artists of amounts of Rs. 10/- and above. Authority: on the line of DG, AIR Memo No. 1/30/56-P.II M, dated 13.6.1956 concurred in AGCR D.O. Letter No. CA-III (32)8(AW)/1057, dated 12.9.1960. 10/- and above. Authority: on the line of DG, AIR Memo No. 1/30/56-P.II M, dated 13.6.1956 concurred in AGCR D.O. Letter No. CA-III (32)8(AW)/1057, dated 12.9.1960. While the cheque issued should be invariably crossed for payees account, outside artists/ performers who do not have bank account where the Doordarshan Kendra is located may be issued bearer cheques on written requests, in the presence of Dy. Director of Administration or an Assistant Station Director.” 24. Evidently, even these guidelines confer upon the respondents an arbitrarily unbridled and unguided discretion not only with regard to engaging the employees like the petitioner, but even with respect to the allotment of work etc. These guidelines are neither transparent nor non-exploitative and leave much to desire. The respondents being creation of a statute are not free to act like an ordinary individual, in dealing with the public while giving jobs, as it cannot act arbitrarily at its, sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with some standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The action of the respondents must not be arbitrary or capricious, but must be based on some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. After all, it is the principle of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in governmental action that lies at the core of our entire constitutional scheme and structure. 25. It was observed by Wades Administrative Laws, 5th Edition at page 347 that “The first requirement is the recognition that all powers have legal limits, the next requirement, no less vital, is that the Court should draw this limit in a way which strikes the most suitable balance between executive efficiency and legal protection of the citizen. Parliament consistently confers upon public authorities powers which on their face seem absolute and arbitrary. But arbitrary power and unfettered discretion are what the Courts refuse to countenance. They have woven a net-work of restrictive principles which require statutory powers to be reasonable and in good faith and in accordance with the spirit and letter of the empowering Act.” At page 359, it was also observed that “Discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That amounts at least to this that the statutory body must be guided by relevant consideration and not irrelevant. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That amounts at least to this that the statutory body must be guided by relevant consideration and not irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous consideration which ought not have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith, nevertheless, the decision will be set-aside.” 26. Here, it shall be apposite to make a reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Public School vs. Huda (1996) 5 SCC 510 , wherein it was observed that when public authority discharges its public duty, it has to be consistent with the public purpose and clear and unequivocal guidelines or rules are necessary and the same cannot be acted at the whim and fancy of the public authorities or under their garb or cloak for any extraneous consideration. 27. The concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional spectrum and is a golden thread which runs through the whole fabric of the Constitution. Thus, Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution accords right to an equality or an equal treatment consistent with principles of natural justice. Therefore, any law made or action taken by the employer, corporate statutory or instrumentality under Article 12 must act fairly and reasonably. Right to fair treatment is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. 28. As observed above, exercise of unbridled and uncanalised discretionary power impinges upon the right of the citizen; vesting of discretion is no wrong provided it is exercised purposively, judiciously and without prejudice. 29. The main concern of the Court in such matters is to ensure the Rule of law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of their helplessness and misery. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. 30. Unfortunately, the aforesaid only depicts sordid, despotic and nepotic functioning of the respondents and its officials. It is highly regrettable that the officials have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts and are meant for use and not abuse. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. 30. Unfortunately, the aforesaid only depicts sordid, despotic and nepotic functioning of the respondents and its officials. It is highly regrettable that the officials have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts and are meant for use and not abuse. Therefore, it is high time that the respondents put their house in order by framing Rules/ Regulations/Guidelines etc. wherein apart from other things procedure for engagement and allotment of work to artists like the petitioner is reasonable, fair, just, transparent and non-exploitative and not arbitrary, fanciful, unjust and exploitative. The same should not confer any unbridled and uncanalised or arbitrary power on the authority i.e. the respondents. 31. Adverting to the contention of the respondents that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not found to be in order. Suffice it to say, that the respondents have failed to place on record any material which may even remotely suggest that his work, conduct and performance were not upto the mark. Therefore, in such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner was wrongly denied the programe anchoring/ presentation work after 14.8.2014 or else nothing prevented the respondents from placing on record any material which could have substantiated the plea so raised by them. 32. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the application dated 2.5.2016 preferred by the petitioner under Right to Information Act with regard to the averments made in para-8 of the petition wherein it has been averred that the performance of the petitioner was not upto the mark and there were adverse remarks and observations of the programme producers with respect to misbehavior/discipline and lack of interest. However, this information was illegally declined to the petitioner on the ground that the same was personal in nature and confidential in respect of experts; if exposed may cause threats in the personal life. 33. A glaring instance of the nepotic functioning of the respondents comes to light when it has chosen to award work to even those programme anchor/presenters, who have failed to qualify such anchoring/audition test in preference to those, who like the petitioner, have duly qualified the audition test. 34. 33. A glaring instance of the nepotic functioning of the respondents comes to light when it has chosen to award work to even those programme anchor/presenters, who have failed to qualify such anchoring/audition test in preference to those, who like the petitioner, have duly qualified the audition test. 34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed in the following terms: (i) That the respondents are directed to frame appropriate guidelines/rules/regulations etc. as the case may be, within three months in accordance with the observations made hereinabove. (ii) Till such time the direction no. (i) is not complied with, respondent no. 2 is directed to provide programe/anchor/presentation work to the petitioner as per his suitability in preference to those anchors, who have not qualified any audition test for the said purpose. 35. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 36. For compliance of direction no. (i), the matter be listed on 10.1.2018.