MAHESH CHANDER CHOPRA Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRASAR BHARTI, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the Indian Broadcasting Service in Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar. He has a long tenure of service to his credit. As per the petitioner he has rendered service for 26 years. He has given his service profile in the petition. He submitted that on 26.4.1994 he was asked to perform the duties of Assistant Station Director at Jammu. For this reliance is being placed on Annexure-A. It is submitted that the respondent- employer has been making effort to deprive him of this higher post. He had approached this Court earlier also. Writ Petition No. 1250/95 was filed. This is said to be pending disposal in this Court and interim order is said to have been passed in the said petition. Copy of the same has been placed on the record as Annexure 'B'. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of the litigation referred to above, the respondents felt annoyed with him. They wanted to shift him from Doordarshan Kendra, Jammu to a far off place. In this connection Annexure-C is said to have been passed. This is dated 15.3.2000. This is subject matter of challenge in this Court. Writ Petition SWP 406/2000 was preferred. This petition was disposed of with an observation that the point of view put across by the petitioner be considered and such relief as may be deemed proper be given to him. The respondents have now passed a fresh order. This is Annexure-E (No. C-17011/3/2000/S-III dated 18.8.2000) to this petition. This order is being challenged inter alia on several grounds. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been legally placed under the administrative control of Prasar Bharti. He is to be treated as on deputation. It is in these circumstances stated that the authority with whom he is on deputation cannot transfer him from Jammu to Ranchi. It is submitted that the petitioner for all intent and purposes continues to be an employee of Doordarshan and he cannot, therefore, be transferred to Ranchi. What is sought to be urged is that he being not a person who is under the administrative control of Prasar Bharti Corporation, therefore, this Corporation cannot transfer the petitioner.

(2.) The issue which has been raised in this petition is purely legal and is to be examined in the light of the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990. This aspect of the matter would be adverted to below. Before doing so the assertions made in the Caveat petition preferred by the respondents be taken note of. In para 3 of the petition it is submitted that the Chief Executive Officer of the Prasar Bharti, Broadcasting Corporation of India is competent to determine as to where the petitioner is to be sent. This has been rightly done and, therefore, no interference is required in this petition.

(3.) The issues involved in this petition are -