JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The writ petitioner has, through the instant writ petition, claimed a rendition, of, a mandamus, upon, the respondents, for, assigning him, the work of anchoring/compering, the, apposite programs, hence, broadcast over Doordarshan. 2. A perusal of Annexure P-2, discloses that the petitioner is since 2003, compering and anchoring, the, apposite programs, hence broadcast through, the, aegis of the respondents. Further more, it also becomes echoed therein that, in contemporaneity to his induction, in, the afore capacity, under the respondents, his performance became assessed by the program officials concerned, (i) and, the apt sequel thereof, is that, the respondents, may not, at this stage, be fully facilitated to impugn, the, proficiency, and, skill of the writ petitioner, in, his performing, the, assignments, of, anchoring/compering, the, apposite programs hence broadcast through, their aegis. 3. Be that as it may, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, upon, becoming beset with the purported exploitative measures, adopted by the respondents, and, arising from want of regulations, guidelines and procedures, for rather regulating the inductions, of, comperes or anchors, of the apposite programs, telecast or broadcast, through the aegis, of, the respondents, became constrained, to, direct the respondents, to, frame requisite guidelines, rules and regulations, for, abating the exploitative indulgences, as, made by the respondents, in, assigning works of anchoring/presenting/compering, of, the apposite programs, hence broadcast or telecast, through their aegis. 4. In pursuance to the directions made, by, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, upon, CWP No. 3675 of 2015 titled as Owais Khan versus Prasar Bharti and another, guidelines occurring in Annexure R-3 became formulated. The verdict (supra) has not been contended nor stated to be dislodged, by either the LPA Bench of this Court, nor, obviously by the Hon’ble Apex Court, whereupon it acquires conclusive and binding effect. 5. Moreover, dehors the afore, even if guidelines, policy(ies) hence appertaining to the lis at hand, became formulated, through a direction being made, through a conclusive and binding verdict (supra), recorded by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, yet, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, cannot become fettered, to, challenge the vires thereof. However, there is no averment, cast in the writ petition wherethrough any challenge, to, the vires of Annexure R- 3, has been made. However, there is no averment, cast in the writ petition wherethrough any challenge, to, the vires of Annexure R- 3, has been made. The solitary submission, addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, for ensuring, the continuity in service of the petitioner, is anchored upon Annexure P- 20, wherein a prescription, is, made, for regularization of the service of those anchors, and, presenters, of, programs concerned, whose induction(s) becomes made prior to its becoming formulated. However, since the afore Annexure, has been conjointly submitted to be rescinded, and also when the guidelines existing in Annexure R-3, are formulated in pursuance, to, a conclusive and binding verdict (supra) recorded, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, thereupon the claim for regularization, of, the writ petitioner, as, presenter and anchor or compere, of, programs concerned, becomes completely rudderless. 6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, at this stage, makes, an, onslaught to the prescription occurring in Annexure R-3, in as much as, the inductions are enjoined to be made, or, the enlistments to be made, hence of, the aspirants concerned, as, anchors/comperes or presenters, of, the programs concerned, rather numbering being between 21 and 35, (i) and, whereupon he submits, that, his holistic proficiency, in the afore assignment, as, disclosed by Annnexure P-22, becoming undermined, through barring prescription(s), of, an age bar becoming cast therein, and, whereupon(s) his legitimate expectations, for, becoming assigned, the, espoused work/assignment also becomes untenably undermined. 7. Even if the afore submission addressed, before this Court, by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, also becomes maimed or deadened, given, the respondents, as, unfolded by Annexure P-21, inviting the petitioner, to, participate in the rescreening test, however he omitted to do so. The afore omission is yet argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to, be legally valid, as his initial valid enlistment occurred in the year 2003, whereupon, the respondents become bereft, of, any apt legal empowerment, to, request him to reappear, for, a re-screening test. The afore omission is yet argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to, be legally valid, as his initial valid enlistment occurred in the year 2003, whereupon, the respondents become bereft, of, any apt legal empowerment, to, request him to reappear, for, a re-screening test. However, as, aforestated, the afore submission falters, as, even if the writ petitioner, became initially inducted, though the embarkings by the respondents, of, the processes thereat prevalent, and, also when his induction, occur(s) in the year 2003, yet whereas, with verdict (supra) becoming pronounced in the year 2019, hence subsequent thereto, and, when, in pursuance whereof, Annexure R-3 became formulated, thereupon, completest adherence(s) by the respondents, and, by the writ petitioner, vis-a-vis, the mandate(s) enshrined therein, was both imperative, and, justifiable. 8. Reiteratedly, a breach becomes visited by the petitioner, vis-a-vis, the mandate borne, in, Annexure R-3, and, also despite relaxations in age becoming granted, to him, the petitioner untenably omitted to participate in the re-screening test. 9. Even if, for all the aforestated reasons, the writ petitioner, does not have any legal claim, however, for ensuring satiation being meted to the pristine concept of justice, moreso, when his induction thereinonto was made, by the then prevalent selection committee, and, also when his performance, is not reflected to be unsatisfactory, (i) thereupon for, undoing the ill effects of his crossing the prescribed age bar, whereupon he would become de-capacitated to seek assignment, of works, as, presenters/anchors of the programs concerned, hence relaxations in age, to the petitioner may be reconsidered to become reafforded to him. 10. 10. Significantly since, on 22.9.2019, he became invited, for participating in the relevant process, and also despite, the eligible aspirants, successfully becoming enlisted for the relevant purpose, yet, when relaxation(s) in age, was granted only an year earlier to the petitioner (i) whereupon there is a concession on the part of the respondents, that relaxation(s) in age can be granted, (ii) whereupon the afore re-relaxations in age, hence for, ensuring the non-torpedoing the legitimate expectation, of, the writ petitioner, to become reenlisted, as, an anchor or presenter of the programs concerned, are deemed fit, for being reconsidered, for, being re-accorded by the respondents, and, they are also directed, to, thereafter, consider and reevaluate the performance, of, the writ petitioner, by the validly constituted screening committee, for, the relevant assignment, and, thereafter they may proceed to assign work to him, after, making minimal increases in the numerical strength, of, anchors, vis-a-vis, the programs broadcast by the respondents concerned, as, given increase(s) in the programs broadcast or telecast through the aegis, of the respondents, whereupon, a proportionate increases in the numerical strength(s) of comperes, presenters and anchors thereof, is but imperative. 11. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of, alongwith all pending applications.