AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kirubakaran, J.—The petitioners are challenging the notification issued by the first respondent for recruitment of 2600 Assistants in
Public Sector General Insurance Company and to appoint the petitioners to the post of Assistants by reserving 25% of the vacant seats in the
notified advertisement as they underwent +2 General Insurance Vocational course in the CBSE School. The petitioners contend that the
respondents in the year 1988 introduced the General Insurance Vocational Course in the selected CBSE schools. The candidates, who got
through the said course were to be absorbed automatically in the posts of Assistants in any one of the Nationalised Insurance Companies. The
petitioners belong to 1993-1994 batch, who successfully got through the said course. The faculty of the Insurance Companies taught as the
subjects in the said course. The course itself was designed for being appointed in the Insurance Companies and all the subjects were Insurance
related. The admission to the course was purely on merits.
Earlier five batches were already absorbed as Assistants in the Insurance Company automatically. However, the petitioners'' batch namely VI
batch was not absorbed as there was no recruitment after 1997. Since the course itself was Insurance oriented, the petitioners were not eligible for
perusing the other course like B.Com, B.Sc. Degrees in the colleges. Therefore, the petitioners have been expecting recruitment''s announcement
from the respondents.
The 9th petitioner K. Chandra filed W.P. No. 18197 of 2001, seeking absorption as Assistant in the National Insurance Company. In the said
writ petition, the respondents contended that no recruitment for the post of Assistant, except for backlog vacancies for the candidates belonging to
SC/ST community, was done and they could not consider and appoint the petitioners in the 25% quota reserved for them. Recording the
undertaking of the respondents that 25% would be reserved for the petitioners, the writ petition was disposed of on 11.2.2006. However,
contrary to the undertaking, now the first respondent issued the impugned notification inviting applications for filling up 2600 vacancies in all the
four Nationalised Insurance Companies. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed.
It is contended by the respondent that 10 + 2 General Insurance Vocational course was introduced in the year 1988 in the selected schools,
through the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) by General Insurance Company Corporation of India and the said scheme was job
linked Vocational Course and provided for appointment in cadre of Assistants in the Insurance Companies. During the year 1991-1992, two
batches of students, on completion of the course, were appointed to the post of Assistants in the respondent companies. Since W.P. No. 3842 of
1994 was filed before this Court seeking reservation and interim orders were obtained, the III and IV batches students could not be
accommodated and after modification of the interim order, III batch students were appointed in 1995, and IV batch students were appointed in
the year 1996.
On 2.7.1993 a revised scheme guidelines were framed by General Insurance Company Corporation of India for vocational courses effective
from 1993-1994. As per the scheme, 25% of the annual vacancies in the recruitment for the post of Assistants would be set apart for the group of
vocational students subject to availability of suitable candidates and compliance with recruitment procedures. It is also contended that from the
academic year 1994, the reservation of 25% of the total annual vacancy in the recruitment for vocational course was withdrawn. As per the
revised recruitment procedures, during 1993, the candidates aspiring to be appointed as the Assistants on completion of two year course, would
deem to meet the academic qualifications for recruitment, will have to be pass +2 with 55%, and undergo skill test, written test, interview, pre-
medical test and age limits. After recruitment of V batch students in the year 1997, no recruitment was carried out upto 2012. Now only as per the
present impugned notification, applications are invited for the post of Assistants. As per the notification, the candidates have to appear in the
written examination, and the final selection will be made on the basis of performance in the written test, interview and computer proficiency test.
The minimum and maximum age prescribed is 18 to 28 years as on 30.6.2013. Therefore, only on qualifying all the above tests, the candidates
could be appointed. In view of that, the writ petition has to dismissed.
Heard Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
The arguments are in consonance with the contentions made in the affidavit and counter affidavits.
This court considered the rival claims and perused the records. It is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the General
Insurance Company Corporation of India, introduced 10 + 2 General Insurance Vocational Course from the year 1988 in selected CBSE schools
and the said scheme was job-linked Vocational Course and provided for appointment in the cadre of Assistants in the respondent companies. In
W.P. No. 18197 of 2011 filed by K. Chandra, the respondents herein filed their counter affidavit and paragraph 4 of the said counter reads as
follows:
4) I state and submit that a scheme known as 10 + 2 General Insurance Vocational Course was introduced in the year 1988 in selected schools
through Central Board of Secondary Education by the General Insurance Corporation of India. The scheme was a job linked vocational course
and provided for appointment in the cadre of Assistant in the respondent Company after completion of the course. Under the scheme, students
who had passed 10 + 2 vocational course with 50% marks were required to undergo one year apprenticeship and after successful completion of
the same, they were appointed to the post of Assistants in the respondent Company and three other Public Sector Insurance Companies.
From the above it is clear that after completion of the Vocational Course with 50% marks and after under-going one year apprenticeship, the
candidates would be appointed in the post of Assistant automatically without any further tests. Moreover, the old batch students were appointed to
the post of Assistants in the year 1991-1992, III batch students were appointed in the year 1995 and IV batch students were appointed in the
year 1996. The Vth batch students were appointed in the year 1997. It is contended by the respondents that from 1993-1994 onwards the job
linkage under the scheme was withdrawn and instead 25% of the vacancies in the cadre of Assistant were to be kept vacant for those passing out
from 10+2 stream in 1993-1994 subject to, such candidates qualifying through the prescribed recruitment procedures and even the said 25% of
vacancies was not extended for the academic year from 1994. Reservation of 25% vacancies for 1993-1994 batch alone would denote that
without information, the job guarantee was withdrawn. Even it is further strengthened by the fact that 25% reservation was not extended by
beyond 1994. It is admitted that the petitioners joined, +2 vocational course in the year 1993-1994.
It is a known fact that the admission for +2 course starts, immediately after the publication of 10th result used to be over in June itself when the
course commences. Therefore, the petitioners would have joined +2 course in June 1993 and the course would have commenced in June 1993
itself. Though it is contended that a decision to withdraw the scheme for academic year 1993-1994, was taken at the Annual Level Meeting of the
Monitory Committee and the same was stated to be intimated by letter dated 2.7.1993. No such letter is produced before this court. Assuming
that it was intimated through letter dated 2.7.1993 by that time, the course would have started and the students would have been undergoing the
course by that time. Therefore, it is very evident after the commencement of the course for the year 1993-1994 only, the job scheme was
withdrawn. Therefore, 1993-94 batch students are covered by automatic absorption scheme and the benefits under the old scheme namely,
automatic absorption of the students undergoing the Insurance Course and successfully completing the apprenticeship, have to be extended to
1993-1994 batch students like the petitioners.
Before getting admission, there was no communication to the students stating that the automatic scheme is no more available and it should have
been published without any knowledge about the alleged withdrawal of the guarantee 1993-1994 batch would have studied +2 course. But for the
assurance held out by the respondents to the 1993-94 batch students about automatic job guarantee out of the course, the petitioners would not
have chosen and joined the course. That apart the said course was neither beneficiary to the petitioners nor suitable for other studies. Therefore,
the respondents are bound by promissory estoppel and equity also lies in favour of the petitioner. The doctrine of ""Promissory estoppel"" is not
really on the principle of estoppel but it is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice and it can be the basis of cause of action as
held by the Apex Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Other judgments are Surya Narain
Yadav and Others Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others, Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd., and D.
Boopalan and Others Vs. Madras Metropolitan W.S.S. Board and Others, .
If a decision was taken to be de-linked the automatic job guarantee in the respondent corporation, sufficient advertisement or intimation or
information in advance should have been made and made known to the students, so that the students would have got information about the non-
availability of job guarantee in advance. The information alleged to have been communicated through letter dated 2.7.1993, itself is very belated as
the student joined the course by that time. The future of the students should not have taken very lightly by the respondent companies which are all
instrumentalities of the state ""state"" as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. No where, it is stated either in the counter affidavit or
by way of documents that the schools as well as students were informed properly. The very fact that the course itself was not discontinued by the
schools in 1993-1994 itself, would prove that there was no information about the de-linkage of the automatic job guarantee from the said course.
If advance information was given, neither the students would have joined the special course nor the schools would have continued the course.
A perusal of the syllabus of the vocational course in General Insurance Company would show that apart from the languages, insurance alone
was prescribed as syllabus viz. for +1:
1) Principles and Practice of Fire Insurance;
2) Principles and Practice of Motor Insurance;
3) Principal and practice of Miscellaneous Insurance for +2;
4) Principle and Practice of Marine Aggro and Hull;
5) Principle and Practice of Engineering and lop Insurance Company; and
6) Principles and Practice of Rural and Crop Insurance.
That part, those subjects were taught only by the Insurance Officials. Hence, the course was designed in such a way, it would only suit for the
Insurance company alone and not for any other job. Therefore, the students who underwent the said course have to be necessarily accommodated
in the respondents'' companies. As stated above, the students who underwent the course during 1993-1994 have to be necessarily beneficiaries of
the automatic appointment in the Insurance Companies.
This matter can also be considered in another angle also. Though it is stated that for the academic year 1993-1994 job-linkage under the
scheme was withdrawn and 25% of the vacancy in the cadre of Assistant, would be kept aside for those, passing through out side 10+ 2 scheme
from the year 1993-1994, no such 25% reservation has been made in the impugned notification. Therefore, the notification is in violation of the
assurance, commitments made to the 1993-1994 batch students, like petitioners. It is stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents in W.P. No. 18197 of 2001, that 25% of the vacancies would be kept aside for the passed out of 10 + 2 VI batch students for the
year 1993-1994. Therefore, the 25% of the posts, in the total vacancy have to necessarily be reserved for 10 + 2 (1993-1994) students. The
respondent cannot deny the said reservation to the petitioners, on the ground that they failed in the written examination. When out of 2600 posts,
650 students constitutes 25% and only nine petitioners appeared for the examination, they cannot be denied posting for non-passing. The
respondents could fix minimum and cut of mark only when the nine number of candidates exceeds the available posts.
First of all, the written examination is unwarranted as far as 1993-1994 batch students are concerned. If they are made to write examination,
like general candidates, there is no benefits for the year 1993-94 batch, out of 25% reservation. In other words, 1993-94 batch students are
treated on par with General candidates by writing examination. The contention of the respondents 1993-1994 students have to undergo written
examination like general candidates only to deny 25% reservation to the petitioners arbitrarily, illegally and capriciously. Admittedly after 1997,
now only by impugned notification, recruitment is sought to be done. Therefore, during interregnum period viz. between 1997 and 2013, the
petitioners could not have any chance for appointment and they are entitled to relaxation of age.
In the order dated 11.2.2006 in W.P. No. 18197 of 2001 filed by the 9th petitioner, this court observed as follows:
Therefore the petitioner shall have a right for being considered for selection only when there is an open recruitment against notified general
vacancies in the respondent-company. Till such time, the petitioner cannot have any grievance at all.
Therefore, the petitioners have to be accommodated in the 25%. Though this court is of the opinion that the impugned notification is bad for non-
reservation of 25% of the posts for 1993-1994 batch, contrary to the assurance, undertaking made in the scheme as well as before the court
proceedings, this court is not inclined to quash the same as it would affect many candidates, who have already undergone the examination and
waiting for results. In view of public interest, this court moulds the prayer.
It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court can mould the prayer and grant relief accordingly. The Supreme
Court in Dwarka Nath Vs. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle D-ward, Kanpur and Another, categorically declared that Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex-facie confers wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice whenever
it is found. Further it was held that Article 226 enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of
this country.
Therefore this court declares:
1) That the respondents have not proved that the de-linking of automatic job guaranteed from the course was informed in advance to the
petitioners even before the admission into their course during 1993-1994. Therefore petitioners are covered by original scheme of automatic job
guarantee.
2) Based on the assurance of automatic job guarantee only, the petitioners joined in the Vocation Course specially designed for Insurance
Companies and therefore the respondents are bound by promissory estoppel.
3) The respondents cannot deny the automatic job to those candidates who under went the course during 1993-1994, as the scheme was
withdrawn unilaterally without information in advance.
4) Assuming that the job guaranteed was withdrawn from 1993-1994, even as per the revised scheme 25% of total seats are not reserved for
1993-1994 to the students as per the impugned notification.
5) The respondents by the impugned notification violate the commitment/undertaking given in the revised guidelines and also the undertaking given
before this court.
6) The respondents cannot compel the petitioners to undergo the tests for getting employment, like general candidates, as they were specifically
made to study the designed vocational course.
7) The petitioners could not joint any other higher course or get employment, because of undertaking the special course.
8) The petitioners have to be appointed by the respondents in their Insurance companies as Assistants after giving one year apprenticeship training.
9) Admittedly after 1997, there was no recruitment up to 2012 and now only through the impugned notification, steps are taken to fill up the posts
of Assistants in the Insurance Companies. Therefore, age relaxation have to be given to the petitioners in view of the above positions.
10) Without quashing the impugned notification in the interest of large number of participants who took part in the recruitment process, this court
moulds the prayer and directs the respondent to absorb the petitioners under the 1988 scheme and to start the process of appointment of the
petitioners by appointing the petitioners as apprentices within four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order and report to this
court.
The respondents are Public Sector Insurance Companies under the control of Government of India and they are coming under the definition of
State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and they are expected to act fairly without any discrimination. However, contrary to the
assurance held out, the respondents unilaterally withdrew the scheme without any proper publicity or information/communication in advance and
the petitioners are made to suffer. If the petitioners were given job as per old scheme they would have benefited monetarily. Therefore,
compensation is to be awarded to the petitioners. However due to judicial restraint, this court is not awarding any compensation. With the above
the writ petition is ordered with the above directions. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P. No. 2 of 2013 is closed. Call after four weeks
for compliance.