OWAIS KHAN Vs. PRASAR BHARTI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(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 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, 1975 AIR(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.