AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J
Challenge in these Writ Appeals is to the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (MD) Nos. 10273 and 10276 of 2007 dated
21.7.2008 whereby the learned single Judge quashed the notification scrapping the empanelment of candidates for appointment to the post of
Clause III Category in the LIC Division, Tirunelveli.
The Respondent in W.A.(MD) No. 757 of 2008 is a Post Graduate in Maths and has passed Higher Grade in English Typewriting and Lower
Grade in Tamil Typewriting. She has got a degree of Rashtrabhasapraveen, which, according to her, is equivalent to M.A. Degree in Hindi. The
Respondent in W.A.(MD) No. 758 of 2008 has got B. Sc., degree and a pass in Higher Grade in English Typewriting as well as Higher Grade in
Tamil Typewriting and also she passed Prathamic Examination in First Class in Hindi. The Appellant/corporation called for applications for the post
of typist in the general category for the year 1993. The Respondents participated in the regular selection process and they were selected in the
general category along with few others for the post of Typists for the year 1993. A panel of selected candidates was prepared. The Respondents
were placed in Sl. Nos. 4 and 2 respectively in the panel for the post of typist for the year 1993. The Respondents were given employment in the
leave vacancies of permanent employees such as maternity leave etc., in the Appellant/corporation on various spells. The Respondents had also
got bonus from the Appellants/Corporation in their service period.
According to the Respondents, one Mr. Senthilvel was appointed on 10.12.2007. The case of the Respondents is that they were bonafidely
waiting for being appointed as Typist as and when permanent vacancies arose. Even though they had given representation seeking to
accommodate them to the post of Typist as against permanent vacancies, their request was not considered. Surprisingly, the Appellant scrapped
the panel of the year 1993 by means of the impugned notification dated 26.11.2007. Challenging the said notification, the Respondents have filed
the Writ Petitions.
The Appellant/Corporation resisted the Writ Petitions contending that by mere inclusion of the Respondents'' name in the panel, the
Respondents cannot have any right to claim any appointment against a permanent vacancy. According to the Appellants/corporation, after the
issuance of the impugned notification, the Respondents do not have any right to seek for regularising them in the vacancies of typist in the
Appellants/Corporation. Due to computerisation and modernisation, the need for typist is reduced to a great extent. Further, the panel of 1993
was prepared 14 years ago and the same cannot be kept alive for ever.
Upon considering the rival contentions, the learned single Judge set aside the impugned notification holding that it is arbitrary. Learned single
Judge directed the Appellants/corporation to accommodate the Respondents on permanent basis in the post of typist and if vacancies are not
available, the Appellants were directed to accommodate the Respondents as and when vacancies arose in future.
Challenging the order of the learned single Judge, this Writ Appeal has been preferred. In this appeal, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Appellant/Corporation, Mr. G.R. Swaminathan contended that mere inclusion of the name of the Respondents'' in the panel will not confer upon
them any right. Placing reliance upon the decision in S.S. Balu and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in 2009 (2) CTC 172, it was
submitted by the learned Counsel that merely because, a person''s name appears in the selection list, such selected candidate does not acquire any
legal right to be appointed.
As per the Life Insurance Corporation of India Recruitment (of Class III & IV Staff) Instructions 1993, those who are empanelled will be
considered for appointment against regular vacancies as and when the need arises. We have no doubt in mind that selected candidates do not
acquire legal right to be appointed only because their names appear in the selection list. In 2009 (2) CTC 172, the decision relied on by the
learned Counsel for the Appellants, the rank list prepared was valid for a period of three years and its validity expired on 5.6.2000. Another select
list was published for the period from 16.9.2002 to 15.9.2005. Vacancies in terms of the said select list have also been filled up. Since the
selection list was valid for a period of three years, the Supreme Court has held that there is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost
sight of. A person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. The State as an employer has a
right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. Unless a discrimination is shown in regard to the filling up of vacancies or an arbitrariness is
committed, the concerned candidate will have no legal right for obtaining a writ in the nature of mandamus.
In the present case, empanelment for Class III was prepared in the year 1993. The Respondents were offered employment in leave vacancies
as and when the need arose and they were paid salary. The Respondents were also paid bonus for their service period. As pointed out earlier,
LIC prepares panel for Class III & IV Staff and there is no stipulated time for the validity of the panel. Admittedly, the panel was kept alive for 14
years. When they have kept the panel alive for 14 years, a legitimate expectation was created in the mind of the empanelled candidates. While so,
we are of the view that, scrapping of the panel after 14 years is arbitrary.
By notification dated 26.11.2007, the panel was scrapped. On 21.11.2007, another empanelled candidate Senthilvel was appointed as Typist.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that when another empanelled candidate Senthilvel was appointed just prior to the notification,
request of the Respondents were not considered and they were discriminated.
In response to the above contention, the learned Counsel for the Appellants/corporation tried to make a distinction contending that Senthilvel
was working in the Corporation from 1993 as a temporary typist till his absorption and he was ranked ahead of the Respondents in the panel of
typists and therefore, there was no discrimination as against the Respondents. Admittedly, in the empanelment, Senthilvel was appointed on
21.11.2007, just a few days prior to the scrapping of the panel. The Respondents also worked for certain time in leave vacancies in different
spells. While so, the Appellant/Corporation was not justified in discriminating the Respondents.
In similar facts, for the empanelment list of Class IV employees, in an unreported decision in Writ Appeal Nos. 526 and 527 of 2007,
recruitment was made calling through the Employment Exchange. A Selection Committee was formed which prepared a panel and out of the
names in the panel, appointments have been made since 1994 upto the year 2000. The services of those persons who were appointed earlier by
following similar procedure were terminated and new recruits were appointed by similar procedure without considering the case of the temporary
appointees who were appointed in the mean time. While setting aside the orders, the Division Bench of this Court, has directed the LIC to reinstate
the Respondents and consider their case for regular appointment. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 526 and 527 of 2007 has held as
under:
...It is not in dispute that the procedure for the regular appointment was followed in the case of the Respondents i.e. by calling for the names
from the Employment Exchange. A Selection committee was formed which prepared a panel. Out of the names from the panel as was prepared,
appointments have been made since 1994 upto the year 2000. By this, the services of those persons, who were appointed earlier by following
similar procedure, by calling their nomenclature as ""temporary employees"", were terminated and new recruits were appointed by similar procedure
without considering the case of the temporary appointees who were appointed in the mean time.
...Though appointments were made in the year 2001 merely on the basis of the interview, we are not expressing any opinion with regard to
such subsequent appointees as their appointment is not under challenge and they are not party Respondents before this Court. We accordingly,
modify the order of the learned single Judge dated 22nd January, 2007 made in W.P. Nos. 699 and 854 of 2001; set aside the orders of
termination of the Respondents and direct the Appellant to reinstate the Respondents immediately and consider their case for regular appointment
against the existing and future vacancies. However, in view of the fact that the Respondents having not worked, we allow only 25% of the
backwages for the intervening period....
In the present case also only after conducting test and interview, the panel was thus prepared following the LIC of India Recruitment (Class III
& IV Staff) Instructions 1993. The ratio of the above decision is applicable to the case on hand.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Corporation submitted that the ratio of Chitra''s case in W.A. No. 2437 of 2010 is not applicable as
special drive was given regarding OBC''s after the Mandal Commission Report whereas the Respondents were empanelled in the general category
for the post of Typists for the year 1993 prior to Mandal Commission Report and therefore, the Respondents cannot claim to equate this to OBC.
Though the Respondents were empanelled in the general category for the post of Typists for the year 1993, the fact remains that the Respondent
also belong to OBC Category. Before going for special drive, the Appellant/Corporation could have ascertained whether the OBC''s are available
in the empanel list. But that was not done.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant nextly contended that due to computerisation and modernisation, the need for typists is reduced to a great
extent and vacancy in an organisation is decided by the quantum of work to be attended. It was further submitted that being the trustee of a public
money, the Corporation has to exercise greater caution in deciding the need for any vacancy for a particular post. Of course, the LIC of India has
to be judicious in spending the public money but the fact remains that the panel was prepared for the year 1993 and the same was kept alive till
2007. The Respondents were appointed in leave vacancies till the year 2000. Of course, mere inclusion of their names appear in the empanelled
list, does not confer indefeasible right. But when the panel was kept alive for 14 years and when the Respondents were offered employment in the
leave vacancies as and when the need arose, naturally, it has created a legitimate expectation in the minds of the Respondents for being considered
for the regular appointment. In such view of the matter, in our considered view, the action of the Appellants/Corporation in scrapping of the panel
is not justified.
While quashing the notification, learned single Judge observed that the Respondents were continuously in employment, which is not factually
correct. Respondents were offered employment only in the leave vacancies in different spells and they were not in continuous employment. We are
of the view that such factual mistake does not in any way affect the correctness of the order of the learned single Judge. The order of the learned
single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.
In the result, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. The Appellant/Corporation is directed to comply with the direction of the learned single
Judge as expeditiously as possible. No costs.