Madras High Court
S.Priya vs The Chairman on 12 September, 2022
W.P.No.24884 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.24884 of 2018
S.Priya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office,
Bombay.
2.The Zonal Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
South Zone 102, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 2.
3.The Regional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
102, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 2. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records of the third respondent made in Ref.SZ/P&IR/DESK-3 dated
07.04.2017 forwarding the impugned order of the second respondent dated
07.04.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
1/8
W.P.No.24884 of 2018
reinstate the petitioner as assistant with effect from 01.07.1994 with all
consequential all other attendant monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Umapathi
For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Anandan
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated
07.04.2017 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner's
request for appointment as an assistant with the LIC under the scheme of the
respondent Corporation in the year 1989.
2. The respondents have rejected the petitioner's request under the
impugned order by giving the following reasons:
a) The petitioner was not one of the petitioners in the earlier
writ petition No.20260 of 1998, which was filed by the IV batch of CBSE
students, seeking appointment with the respondent Corporation. When the
aforementioned writ petition was heard, it had been submitted by the
students-petitioners that, out of the entire batch only eleven persons were
left out and hence, the High Court of Madras, after taking into account the
W.P.No.24884 of 2018
said submissions, issued a direction to the LIC to consider the candidatures
of those eleven persons only. The petitioner was not one among the eleven
persons;
b) While delivering the judgment in W.P.No.20260 of 1998, the High
Court had made it clear that the said order had been passed in respect of the
last batch of students who have undergone the vocational course as a special
case and the same shall not be cited as a precedent;
c) The petitioner Smt.Priya approached belatedly, that too, only after
passing the order in writ petition No.20260 of 1998 in 2009.
3. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order on the following
grounds:
a) The impugned order has been passed arbitrarily, illegally and it
violates the principles of natural justice;
b) The petitioner is the only left-out candidate in 1992-1994 (IV
batch) and she is one among the last batch of students who underwent
vocational course;
c) The rejection of the petitioner's request on the ground of laches is
arbitrary and illegal;
W.P.No.24884 of 2018
d) The action of the respondent is arbitrary, illegal and it violates
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
e) In the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.15 of 1995,
the respondent Corporation was directed to appoint the students belonging
to 1991-1993 batch as early as possible. The petitioner belongs to the
subsequent academic year and exactly in similar circumstances LIC
appointed similarly placed students thereby adopting step motherly
treatment to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the
petitioner's batch mates have already been appointed by the respondent
Corporation, the petitioner should not be discriminated. According to the
petitioner, several representations were given by the petitioner seeking for
appointment, but the same were not considered and only thereafter, the
petitioner had to file W.P.No.2499 of 2011 before this Court and by order
dated 24.01.2017 in the said writ petition, the respondent Corporation was
directed to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and in
accordance with law. However, according to the learned counsel for the
W.P.No.24884 of 2018
petitioner, erroneously and arbitrarily the petitioner's representation has
been rejected under the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner did not
file any writ petition before this Court immediately when the cause of action
arose for her on account of the respondents not appointing her as an
assistant under the scheme of the year 1989. The petitioner completed her
vocational education in the year 1994. Some of her batch mates had
approached this Court in the year 1998 itself by filing writ petitions. Final
orders were passed by this Court in those writ petitions in the year 2009.
The petitioner in this writ petition was not a party to those writ petitions.
This Court in its order dated 27.04.2009 directed the respondents to give
appointment to those petitioners only as Office Assistants. The petitioner
filed a writ petition only in the year 2011 after coming to know that her
batch mates were granted appointment in the respondent Corporation,
pursuant to directions given by this Court in the year 2009.
5. The petitioner's representation was disposed of by this Court by its
order dated 24.01.2017, in which a direction was issued to the respondent
Corporation to consider the petitioner's request for appointment on merits
and in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said direction only the
W.P.No.24884 of 2018
impugned order came to be passed, rejecting the petitioner's request by
giving the reasons mentioned supra.
6. Admittedly, there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the
petitioner to approach this Court. Only in the year 2011, she had approached
this Court by filing W.P.No.2499 of 2011, eventhough, the cause of action
arose in the year 1994 and the scheme relates to 1989. Similarly placed
petitioners who were vigilant, had approached this Court in the year 1998
itself, whereas, the petitioner had approached this Court only in the year
2011 only after coming to know that her batch mates were offered
appointments, pursuant to the directions given by this Court in the year
2009.
7. The respondents have given valid reasons in the impugned order
which has been referred to supra for rejecting the petitioner's representation
dated 28.02.2017 and the same has been rejected only on merits and in
accordance with law. This Court does not find any merit in this writ
petition.
W.P.No.24884 of 2018
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.
12.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ab
To
1.The Chairman,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office,
Bombay.
2.The Zonal Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
South Zone 102, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 2.
3.The Regional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
102, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 2.
W.P.No.24884 of 2018
ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.,
ab
W.P.No.24884 of 2018
12.09.2022
