Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Lalitha vs The Union Of India on 15 November, 2024
1
APHC010465602021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 28379/2021
Between:
K Lalitha ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. TENEPALLI NIRANJAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
2. BATHULA RAJ KIRAN (SC FOR LIC )
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the following relief:
".....to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus
questioning the action on the part of Respondent No 3 in declining Petitioners request for giving
appointment to the Petitioner as Stenographer at Senior Divisional Manager Office Life Insurance
Corporation of India Machilipatnam Krishna District with all service benefits as same is illegal
against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to give
appointment to the Petitioner as Stenographer at Senior Divisional Manager Office Life Insurance
Corporation of India Machilipatnam Krishna District with all service benefits and pass...."
2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, she appointed
as Stenographer Post at Senior Divisional Manager Office, Life Insurance
Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, from then onwards for 89
days till the month of November, 1990, she had discharged her duties as
Stenographer without there being any complaints from any quarters, later she
has been terminated from services for the reasons best known to them. Later,
the petitioner has appeared for Stenographer Examination conducted by
Respondents for filling up 5 posts after she obtained directions from Hon'ble
District Forum, but officials concerned have not permitted her to participate in
selection process in pursuance of Notification dt. 19-03-1991. It is stated that,
while at the time of notification, as the petitioner realized that B.Com as a
qualification is not sufficient enough to secure a job and also as there is a heavy
demand for technical courses like typewriting, short hand and computer
knowledge, she got herself trained in both. To her credit, she already passed
typewriting higher grade examination with 69.5% marks in the year 1986, she
passed Short Hand intermediate examination with 62% marks in the year 1990,
the present speed (in short hand) is 120 words per minute. The Degree
Percentage is 62.7% (B.com) and she is recipient of gold medal for securing
100% marks in statistics in B.Com Examination. So, as the petitioner has got
highest percentage of marks, she had been under the impression that she would
get appointment as Stenographer. But her application got rejected for pre
recruitment test stating that the cutoff percentage is 63% and she secured 62.7%
in graduation. The Respondents have considered only the percentage in
Graduation and did not take into consideration the marks obtained in shorthand
which is required for a stenographer post, which violates the paper advertisement
given the pre- recruitment test Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the
District Consumer forum, regarding the misuse of paper Advertisement and loss
incurred to her. The said petition was allowed by the District Consumer forum
and permitted her to appear for pre recruitment test held on 09-06-1991 and
stated that the Examination paper should be separately placed in a sealed cover
and result of it will not be announced until further orders. At the time of
examination, the Respondents took the appointment order and termination order.
On the Other hand some of the Terminated Temporary employees those who
worked in the year 20-05-1985 to 04-03-1991 have approached Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, New Delhi for absorption as a permanent employee. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India allowed the petition Contempt (C) No.1921/2017 IN Civil
Appeal No. 6950/2009 and forwarded the case to Central Government Industrial
Tribunal (CGIT), New Delhi. Later, the CGIT has passed award regarding the
absorption of concerned workmen in permanent posts and liability of paying all
consequential benefits and monetary benefits by the Corporation and same is
given as judgment on 18-03-2015.
While so the Respondent No.3 in PLC 118/2020 in Para.10 stated that the
Petitioner filed one Industrial Dispute No.27/1991 before CGIT and same is
pending for final Judgment and LIC in their Rejoinder filed stated "it was
mistakenly types as "one Industrial Dispute No.27/1991 before CGIT and the
same is still pending for final judgment before Supreme Court of India" on 17- 03-
2021 and herein by Letter dated 23-06-2021 has rejected her plea for absorbing
in to services by assigning reason that Regulation 8 (2) of LIC Staff Regulations
1960 does contemplate that no person even appointed as a temporary workman
or women shall be entitled to absorption, therefore, questioning the action of the
respondents No.4 in rejecting her plea for absorbing in services by invoking
Regulation 8 (2) of LIC Regulations 1960, the present writ petition came to be
filed.
3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.2 and 3. In
the counter affidavit, while denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia,
contended that, the respondent corporation has not received any application from
the Petitioner herein, in response to the notification dated 21.07.2015, which fact
has also been admitted by the petitioner herself. All the applications received
from the persons, in response to the notification dated 21.07.2015, were
processed by the Corporation and those persons who were found to be eligible
were also offered appointment in the Corporation. Thus, the Order by the
Honourable Supreme Court was implemented by the respondent Corporation in
toto. It is stated that, as per the then recruitment rules of the Corporation, the
number of candidates for admission to pre-recruitment test is restricted to ten
times the number of vacancies notified. At the time of recruitment, at that time, for
5 posts of Stenographer, 326 applications were received in response to the
Employment Notice. Since the response was very large, the Corporation
scrutinized the applications, fixed the cut-off marks for each category and called
the candidates who have obtained marks over and above the cut-off marks. The
candidates who did not obtain more marks than the cut-off marks were not called
for Pre-Recruitment Test held on 09/06/1991, as per the then rules. The
petitioner submits that she had approached the District Consumer Forum which
has allowed and the petitioner was permitted to appear for pre-recruitment test
held on 09.06.1991. But, subsequently, the State Commission, vide its order
dated 01.02.1992, disposed of the appeal filed by the Corporation, observing that
the complaint filed by the petitioner, before the District Forum, is not maintainable
as the petitioner is not the consumer as defined in the act. Hence, the submission
of the petitioner, at this point of time, that she got meritorious marks in
recruitment test and as such she is entitled to getting appointment as
Stenographer is not tenable and the same is hereby denied.
It is further stated that as per the Docket Note dated 17.03.2021 by the
Presiding Judge, Lok Adalat, Machilipatnam, the petitioner has submitted a
representation dated 04.03.2021 to the Honourable Chairman, DLSA and the
same was forwarded to the 3rd respondent Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of
India, Machilipatnam dated 15.03.2021 vide Dis. No. 358/21 and that the
petitioner was advised to follow up the matter by approaching the 3rd respondent
Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Machilipatnam. The 3rd respondent
Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Machilipatnam Division had replied to
the representation dated 04.03.2021 of the petitioner, vide letter dated
23.06.2021, giving the reasons therein as to why the petitioner's request cannot
be considered.
It is further stated that the petitioner in the writ affidavit has submitted that
she had earlier worked as temporary employee in the office of the Corporation
but had not submitted any evidence in support of the same. However, as per
Rule 8 (2) of LIC of India (Staff) Rules, 1960, no person even appointed as
temporary workmen shall only by reason of such appointment be entitled for
absorption in the service of the Corporation or claim preference for recruitment to
any post. The petitioner has not submitted any application in response to the
notification issued pursuant to the order by the Honourable Supreme Court dated
21.07.2015 issued by the respondent Corporation. Therefore, now pleading to
consider petitioner's case is not tenable. Claiming absorption in LIC of India
without applying for within the stipulated time as notified in the relevant
Notifications is not proper and the therefore, the petitioner's claim is not tenable
in law.
4. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit
filed by the respondents No.2 and 3. In the reply, it is denied that, even the
employed following the LIC of India Instructions are not eligible for regularization
as the sub rule (2) of Rule 8 of LIC of India (stat) Rules 1000 stipulates that no
person appointed on a temporary basis shall only by reason of such appointment
be entitled to absorption in the services of the corporation of claim preference for
recruitment to any post. However, such a temporary employee has worked for a
minimum period of 85 days or more in a financial year, he will be allowed
relaxation in upper age limit to compete in the immediately following regular
recruitment under the LIC of India and entire this para totally denied. It is true
that, the petitioner approached the District consumer forum seeking to permit the
petitioner to appear for pre-recruitment test held on 09.06.1991. in this
connection, a petition CD No., 387 of 1991 was filed before the District Forum,
Machilipatnam. It is also true that the respondents 2 and 3 issued a notification
dated 21.07.2015 in compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated
18.3.2015 in the Civil Appeal no. 6950 of 2009 title tamilnadu terminated fulltime
temporary LIC employees association vs Lic of india and others with 6951, 6992,
6993, 6954 and 6956 of 2009 to implement the award dated 18.06.2001 in the ID
No. 27 of 1991, CGIT New Delhi. In the reply, it is stated that, it is not true that,
the respondent corporation has not received any application from the petitioner in
response to the notification dated 21.07.2015 is totally false and baseless and
hence the rest of the contents are totally denied.
5. Heard Smt Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri B. Raj Kiran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments
made in the petition and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
7. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating the
contents made in the counter affidavit, contended that, the Cut off/ Last date
cannot be ignored as there may be other persons who would have applied had
they known that date of application is flexible and thus there would be no end for
demand of the same. Moreover, the process of implementation of the judgment of
Honourable Supreme Court is completed long back. The petitioner has
approached the Hon'ble Court belatedly and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on the sole ground of delay and latches. Further, the representation of
the petitioner dated 4.3.2021 has been received and the respondent has sent a
reply letter dated 23.6.2021 stating that the reasons due to which the respondent
corporation is not able to acceded to the request, in spite of this, the petitioner
has preferred the present writ petition. Thus the petition is devoid of merits and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Perused the material on record.
9. On a perusal of the material, it is observed that, the petition has been
appointed as Stenographer at Senior Divisional Manager Office, LIC,
Machilipatnam in the year 1990 and she has been discharging her duties till the
month of November 1990 i.e., only 89 days. Later, the respondents have issued
notification for Stenographer examination for filling up 5 posts. As the petitioner
has acquired requisite qualification with regard to the notification, the petitioner
approached the District Consumer Forum regarding the misuse of paper
advertisement and loss incurred to her. The said petition was allowed and
permitted the petitioner to appear for pre-recruitment test held on 9.6.1991 and
stated that the examination paper should be separately placed in a sealed cover
and result of it will not be announced until further orders. It is also noticed by this
Court that, at the time of recruitment notification and the examination, the
petitioner took the appointment and termination order regarding her service in
LIC.
10. It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had worked
as temporary employee in the office of the corporation but had not submitted any
evidence in support of the same.
11. As stated by the respondents, though the petitioner has not submitted
any application in response to the notification issued pursuant to the order by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 21.7.2015 issued by the respondent corporation,
therefore, the plea of the petitioner that to consider her case is not tenable.
Moreover, the process of implementation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has already been completed long back.
12. This court mainly observed that, the petitioner while making the
representation dated 04.03.2021 to the Senior Divisional Manager,
Machilipatnam, in the petition dated 2.9.2020 filed before the District Legal
Services Authority, Machilipatnam and in other correspondence made by the
petitioner, submitted that she had worked in the office of the respondent
corporation on temporary basis. But in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is
stated that she had been appointed as Stenographer and that after discharging
duties for 89 days, she had been terminated from services for the reasons best
known to the respondents. So in view of the above, the submissions of the
petitioner, are totally misleading and false.
13. It is further observed that, LIC of India has issued notification in
pursuant to the compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in Civil Appeal
No.6950 of 2009, without prejudice to the legal rights of the Corporation, inviting
applications from the concerned workmen who were employed by LIC of India
between 20.05.1985 and 4.3.1991 and satisfying the eligibility conditions for
absorption as per the Award dated 18.6.2021. So, the workmen who have been
appointed by following the procedure under the LIC (Staff) Rules 1960 or any
other instructions issued by the corporation form time to time only will be
considered as per the said Notification. The concerned workmen who were
employed by LIC of India between the period from 20.5.1985 to 4.3.1991 and
satisfying the conditions as per the above award only were eligible to apply. But
the respondents have not received any application from the petitioner in response
to the notification dated 21.7.2015.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court observed that, in view of
compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6950 of
2009 the LIC of India has issued notification for conducting One Time Exam for
considering the case of the left over candidates and invited applications from the
concerned workmen, whoever claimed as employees of LIC. It appears that the
respondents have followed the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
issued notification and called for applications. But in the present case, the
petitioner has not availed that opportunity. Without availing the said opportunity,
she filed the present writ petition for considering her case and appoint her as
Stenographer in the said Notification is not tenable at this juncture.
15. Therefore, this Court found no merit in the instant petition and devoid
of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all
the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 15-11-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date : 15.11.2024
Gvl
