AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.—Contending that he was appointed on daily wage basis of Rs. 50/- per day in the office of the first respondent on 31-8-1998 and is continuing as such till the date of filing of this writ petition in September, 1999, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize his services as Typist-Cum-Assistant in the office of the first respondent.
On behalf of the first respondent, the Regional Manager (Legal)filed his counter-affidavit, contending that the allegation of the petitioner that he was appointed on 31-8-1998 on daily wage basis as Typist-Cum-Assistant is not correct, and that the services of the petitioner were utilized only as a job typist, and that there is no post like Typist-Cum-Assistant in the office of the first respondent and that recruitment to the posts in the Life Insurance Corporation are governed by LIC of India Recruitment (of Class-III and Class-IV Staff) Instructions, 1993, and that as per those instructions, recruitment to the post of typist can be made only after holding a pre-recruitment written test, speed test and interview, and those tests will be held to the candidates who possess the prescribed minimum educational qualifications, and their age limit is 30 years, and in any event since the petitioner does not possess the required educational qualifications and is aged 31 years, he is not entitled to be regularized.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner passed Pre-University Examination, which is equivalent to passing of Intermediate, and so the contention of the respondents that the petitioner does not possess the minimum educational qualification prescribed is not correct, and contended that since the petitioner has been working for more than one year, from morning till evening, doing the work of typing in the office of the first respondent, he is entitled to get his services regularized in terms of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court in relation to daily wage workers. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the first respondent (sic. petitioner) was not appointed on daily wage basis to do typing work and was only doing job work as a typist, and so he cannot be said to be a daily wage employee of the first respondent. He also contended that appointments to Class-III and Class-IV posts are governed by the LIC of India Recruitment (of Class-III and Class-IV) Staff Instructions, 1993, wherein procedure for recruitment of typists is prescribed and if the services of the petitioner are regularized, it would amount to permitting the entry of the petitioner through back door, which is deprecated by the Supreme Court in various decisions. It is also his contention that the said Instructions are statutory in nature as laid down by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar and another, . He also relied on Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Virendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel, ; Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Harish Balkrishna Mahajan, ; P. Ravindran and Others Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry and Others, and Patna University and Another Vs. Dr. Amita Tiwari (Mrs.), and contended that in view of the ratio in the above decisions, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief of regularization of his services.
It is not necessary for me to go into the question whether Pre-University Course is equivalent to HSC (standard 12 of 10 + 2 + 3 pattern) for disposal of this case. As per the LIC of India Recruitment (of Class-III and Class-IV Staff) Instructions, 1993, the post of typist is a Class-III post. Regulation Nos. 6,7,9,10,11,12 and 15 of the said Regulations govern the mode of appointment of a typist, which inter alia, prescribe that for recruitment to Class-III posts applications through advertisements in local news-papers and from Employment Exchanges have to be invited and candidates have to appear for written test, and the candidates selected in the written test should be called for interview, and basing on their performance in the interview, a panel of selected candidates should be prepared. So, it is clear that a particular procedure is prescribed for selecting typists in the institution of LIC of India. In the said circumstances though the petitioner worked for some time in the office of the first respondent, either on daily wage basis as contended by him, or as job typist as contended by the respondents he (petitioner) cannot acquire a right to get his services regularized without following the recruitment rules of the institution, because from the various decisions of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents, it is seen that if recruitment is made by a method other than the method prescribed in the above Regulations, it would make the recruitment process nugatory or otiose, and thereby the department can favour any person or appoint any person without following the procedure provided in the recruitment rules, which would lead to nepotism and arbitrariness. In the above circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to claim that he should be regularized as a typist in the office of the first respondent because such regularization would be against the statutory instructions governing the recruitment of typists in LIC of India, In the circumstances, I find no merits in this writ petition.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, hoping that his services would be regularized, did not avail the opportunity of appearing for selections, and now he became over-aged, and so, he may be either permitted to appear for the test to be conducted or permitted to work in the first respondent Institution, because he is not being given any work in the office of the first respondent after filing of the writ petition.
No direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the competitive test can be given because he admittedly is over-aged. The respondents, if they are satisfied with the work of the petitioner, are at liberty to utilise his services as job typist on any other basis permissible.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.