Petitioners who apply pursuant to an impugned recruitment advertisement cannot subsequently challenge that advertisement; the High Court affirms settled principle that participation bars such challenge, with an added direction to consider petitioners’ experience sympathetically. This judgment affirms and applies the existing doctrine regarding acquiescence and is binding within Uttarakhand for future recruitment and service matters in public employment contexts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSS/1697/2025 of KANCHANA PANDEY Vs UNION OF INDIA |
| CNR | UKHC010163552025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand; can be cited as precedent in similar service law disputes |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms settled principle regarding challenge to selection process after participation |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Public Employment / Recruitment |
| Questions of Law | Whether a petitioner can challenge an advertisement for empanelment after participating in the selection process. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that once petitioners have applied pursuant to the impugned advertisement for empanelment, it is not open for them to subsequently challenge the same advertisement. The practice of participating in a recruitment or empanelment process and thereafter contesting its legality is impermissible. The petition was dismissed at this stage, with only a direction to consider the petitioners’ experience sympathetically in the fresh empanelment process. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None explicitly cited |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation of engagement terms and the legal doctrine on acquiescence and waiver upon participation in proceedings. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners were previously empanelled as Stringers by Prasar Bharati for various periods from 2001, 2004, and 2017. They challenged a 2025 advertisement calling for fresh applications for empanelment, contending that their satisfactory service should suffice. Respondents referred to guidelines mandating biennial panel revision, the initial basis and terms of appointment, and argued that petitioners subsequently applied under the new advertisement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and quasi-judicial authorities in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India, especially in recruitment and service disputes |
| Follows | Established precedent that challenge after participation is not permissible (no specific case cited) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and applies the principle that once a petitioner participates in the recruitment or empanelment process challenged, they are estopped from questioning that process.
- Emphasizes the contractual and piecemeal nature of engagement for Stringers (not regular employment), based on Prasar Bharati’s 2010 guidelines.
- A sympathetic consideration of long-serving candidates’ experience may be requested but does not vest a right to continued empanelment.
- No explicit overruling or new substantive law created, but clear affirmation of the established doctrine applicable to future challenges in recruitment/service cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the terms of petitioners’ original empanelment, emphasizing its temporary and piecemeal nature, and the requirement for periodic renewal as per Prasar Bharati’s 2010 Guidelines (panel to be revised every two years).
- Cited respondents’ argument that as petitioners have already applied under the impugned advertisement for fresh empanelment, they are barred from now challenging its validity.
- Concluded that participation in the selection process amounts to acquiescence or waiver, precluding a writ at that stage.
- No substantive error or arbitrariness found that would warrant interference; the main relief was declined.
- Court disposed of the petition with limited direction: respondent should consider petitioners’ experience sympathetically in deciding fresh empanelment.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioners have been working as Stringers for several years to the satisfaction of authorities.
- Object to the fresh advertisement calling for applications for empanelment, asserting their continued satisfactory service should preclude this.
- Challenged order which merely extended their empanelment pending fresh process, seeing it as ending their existing panel status.
Respondent
- Cited Prasar Bharati’s 2010 guidelines requiring biennial revision of panels.
- Referred to initial appointment terms: engagement for 3 months, extendable to 1 year, remuneration on a piecemeal basis for telecasted news items, not regular employment.
- Pointed out that petitioners themselves have applied under the impugned advertisement for fresh empanelment.
- Argued that petitioners’ participation disentitles them from challenging the advertisement.
Factual Background
Petitioners were empanelled as Stringers by Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) in 2001, 2004, and 2017. They contested a 12.09.2025 advertisement inviting fresh applications for empanelment as Stringer/Cameraman in various Uttarakhand districts, citing prolonged, satisfactory service. Prasar Bharati relied on engagement guidelines requiring biennial revision of panels and pointed out that the petitioners’ original appointments were temporary and remuneration-based. An interim extension was given only till December 2025 or completion of the new empanelment process. Petitioners had nonetheless applied under the new advertisement.
Statutory Analysis
- Analyzed Prasar Bharati’s internal guidelines dated 2.7.2010, specifically Clause 14, mandating the revision of Stringer panels every two years.
- Examined the terms of initial appointment orders: three-month empanelment, extendable to one year based on satisfactory service, and payment based on news items found worthy of telecast.
- No statutory or constitutional provision beyond guidelines and terms of engagement discussed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovation noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on waiver by participation in recruitment/selection process reaffirmed and applied.