2025:UHC:9509 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 1697/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Amish Tewari, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt and Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the respondents. (2) Petitioners were empanelled as Stringers by Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) in the year 2001, 2004 and 2017 respectively. They are aggrieved by an advertisement published on 12.9.2025, whereby fresh applications have been invited for empanelment as Stringer/Cameraman for certain districts of State of Uttarakhand. Petitioners contend that since they are serving for the last several years to the satisfaction of concerned authorities, therefore, there is no reason to invite fresh applications. (3) Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, has drawn attention of this Court to the guidelines issued by Prasar Bharati, New Delhi on 2.7.2010. Clause 14 of the said guidelines provides that the panel of Stringers will be revised every two years. She has also drawn attention of this Court to the order of initial appointment of the petitioners, which reveals that they were initially empanelled for three months and this term of engagement was extendable to one year, subject to satisfactory work. The said order further reveals that petitioners were to be paid remuneration, based on the number of news items found fit to be telecasted. Learned Counsel for the 2025:UHC:9509 respondents is thus right in submitting that it is not an employment and remuneration has to be paid to the petitioners on piecemeal basis. (4) Petitioners have also challenged the order dated 10.7.2025, passed by Deputy Director, Prasar Bharati, whereby their term was extended for a further period of five months i.e. till 31.12.2025 or till completion of process of fresh empanelment. The said order indicates that the empanelment of petitioners have come to an end, which was extended in order to complete the process of fresh empanelment. (5) Learned Counsel for the respondents points out that petitioners have applied pursuant to the impugned advertisement. (6) After applying pursuant to the impugned advertisement, it would not be open to the petitioners to challenge the selfsame advertisement. Thus this Court do not find any reason to interfere in the matter at this stage. The writ petition is, however, disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of petitioners for fresh empanelment sympathetically, having regard to the long experience earned by them. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 29.10.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462 503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C 67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.10.30 10:24:50 +05'30' 2025:UHC:9509