Telangana High Court
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs B. D. G. Prasad Alias Ganesh on 10 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1426 & 1432 of 2024 and
126 & 159 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):
Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel
represents Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the
appellants in W.A.Nos.1432 & 1426 of 2024 and for the
respondents in W.A.Nos.126 & 159 of 2025 and Sri G. Vidya
Sagar, learned Senior Counsel represents Ms. K. Udaya Sri,
learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.Nos.126 & 159 of 2025
and for the respondents in W.A.Nos.1432 & 1426 of 2024.
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. Sri S.Vishwanadham and 3 others (hereinafter referred
to as 'writ petitioners') filed W.P.No.2288 of 2013 against Life
Insurance Corporation of India and its officers (hereinafter
referred to as 'Corporation') seeking a direction/Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the Corporation in not
appointing the writ petitioners as sub-staff in pursuance of the
written examination held on 26.06.2011, interview and medical
examination. Consequently, a direction is sought for to declare
that the writ petitioners are entitled to be appointed as sub-staff
coming under Class-IV category along with other candidates who
have appeared in the written examination held on 26.06.2011.
4. Upon contest, learned Single Judge, vide order dated
14.06.2022, allowed the said writ petition holding that
employment certificate and experience certificates are given by
the Corporation in respect of the writ petitioners and therefore,
the Corporation cannot deny the opportunity of employment to
the writ petitioners when they have qualified in the written
examination and also interview and medical test. Further, the
learned Single Judge directed the Corporation to absorb the writ
petitioners into the services as Sub-Staff subject to employment
certificate given to each of the petitioners being not cancelled by
the Corporation.
5. The admitted position before us is that pursuant to a
judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s).953-968 of
2005, dated 18.01.2011, in LIC of India v. D.V.Anil Kumar
etc., the employees were required to be absorbed subject to
fulfilling certain conditions. The condition which is relevant for
adjudication of this matter is as under:
"Candidates falling under Category (a) will have to
submit copies of proof of working with the
Corporation for more than five years as on
18.01.2011, duly signed by the Chief
Manager/Sr/Branch Manager In-Charge of the
Branch Office, Manager (P&IR)/Manager (OS) of the
respective Divisional Office or the Regional Manager
(P&IR)/Regional Manager (OS) in respect of Zones
where the candidate is working. The onus of
furnishing authentic documentary proof for the
same at the time of submission of the application
shall be on the candidate."
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation submits that
the writ petitioners filed the writ petition by contending that they
have rendered more than five years of service as on the cut-off
date i.e. 18.01.2011. However, one such writ petitioner, namely
Sri S. Vishwanadham, in his pleadings himself mentioned his
date of first engagement as 01.04.2007. Counting from that
date, he had not completed five years of service as on the said
cut-off date.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation further
submits that learned Single Judge considered the
experience/working certificates issued by the Corporation, and
on the strength of those certificates, opined that the writ
petitioners, indeed, rendered five years of service as on the cut-
off date and directed to absorb the writ petitioners as sub-staff.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation further
submits that the Corporation did not admit that the writ
petitioners had rendered five years of service as on the cut-off
date. Such objection is categorically mentioned in the counter
filed before the writ court. Apart from this, the writ petitioners'
candidatures as temporary sub staff/daily wage employees, on
the strength of which the writ petitioners were showing that they
had rendered five years of services, were already cancelled and
such document was filed with the writ petition (page No.82).
This cancellation order was not put to test.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation further
submits that the respondents filed a review petition, namely
Review I.A.No.1 of 2023, in the writ petition pointing out that Sri
S. Vishwanadham was engaged in the year 2007 and therefore,
he has not completed five years of service. The review
application was entertained and the order of the learned Single
Judge was maintained for other writ petitioners, except for Sri S.
Vishwanadham.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation further
submits that the Corporation issued warning letters on
07.02.2014 to the concerned Senior Branch Manager/Branch
Manager, who had issued experience certificates to the writ
petitioners, because of the irregularities observed in the matter
of recruitment. Lastly, it is submitted that in view of the
judgment of Supreme Court in State Bank of India v.
Mohd.Mynuddin 1, the writ court, at best, could have issued
AIR 1987 SC 1889
directions to consider the case of the writ petitioners for
absorption and could not have issued positive direction to
absorb them.
11. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ
petitioners submits that in the writ petition, the writ petitioners
have mentioned a chart and spelled out the dates of their initial
engagements. Because of a typographical error, the date of
initial engagement of one of the writ petitioners, namely
Sri S. Vishwanadham, was mentioned as 01.04.2007 in place of
01.04.2001. The initial date of 01.04.2001 is matching with the
date mentioned in the experience certificate (page No.76).
I.A.(SR)No.110804 of 2024 was filed before the writ court seeking
correction in the said date of initial engagement, but said
interlocutory application was never decided. Treating that
erroneous date to be correct, the order of writ court was modified
for writ petitioner No.1, Sri S. Vishwanadham. If innocuous I.A.
for amendment would have been allowed, there would have been
no occasion to consider and allow the review petition.
12. So far the order of cancellation of candidatures on which
reliance by learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation is placed,
learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners submits that a
careful reading of the said document (page No.82) shows that by
no stretch of imagination, it can be treated to be an "order". This
is an annexure to a document and was not addressed to anybody
nor communicated to the writ petitioners officially. Admittedly,
the writ petitioners passed the written examination, medical
examination and other formalities. The only thing which was
coming in their way was whether they have rendered five years of
service as on the cut-off date or not. The only requirement was
to produce the experience certificates which were duly produced
by the writ petitioners. The subsequent cancellation of those
certificates after decision of the writ petition is of no assistance
to the Corporation. Learned Senior Counsel also criticized the
so-called "warning letters" dated 07.02.2014 which nowhere
shows that warning was given because of certifying the
experience/years of service of the writ petitioners. It is also
pointed out that the Corporation was having the entire service
records of the writ petitioners but they did not disclose the
actual days of working in the counter filed before the writ court.
13. The parties confined their arguments to the extent
indicated above.
14. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on the rival
contentions and perused the record.
15. This is not disputed before us that the writ petitioners
have passed their written examination, interview and medical
examination. The singular point raised by the learned Senior
Counsel for the Corporation is in relation to five years working of
the writ petitioners before the cut-off date. As per the policy, the
relevant portion of which has already been reproduced by us, it
is clear that the certificates issued by the Branch
Manager/Senior Branch Manager are entertainable. Admittedly,
the writ petition was filed equipped with such certificates issued
by the Branch Manager/Senior Branch Manager certifying that
the writ petitioners have completed more than five years of
service as on 18.01.2011. The writ court did not disbelieve the
said certificates. We find substance in the argument of the
learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioners that before filing
the counter affidavit and even before deciding the writ petition,
the Corporation had not cancelled those certificates.
Cancellation of those certificates, after decision of the writ
petition, cannot cause any dent to the order of learned Single
Judge.
16. We also find substance in the argument of the learned
Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners that the document (page
No.82) cannot be treated to be an "order" and therefore non-
challenge of that document will not have any adverse impact on
the writ petitioners, more so, when the writ petitioners
categorically prayed for their appointment as sub-staff pursuant
to their selection in the written examination, interview and
medical examination.
17. One of the warning letters dated 07.02.2014 needs to be
reproduced:
ERD/SCZ/R/13-14/36 07.02.2014
Shri J Hari Lal,
S.R.No.518099,
Branch Manager(MINS),
Divisional Office,
Warangal
Dear Sir,
Re: Irregularities observed in Recruitment of Peons
During your tenure as Branch Manager,
Devarakonda Branch Office, Secunderabad Division,
you had issued the employment certificate to
Shri B.D.G.Prasad a/s Ganesh, without
following the instructions contained in letter
Ref.:PER/MPR/CL4/2011-12/L060dated15.06.2011
for Recruitment of Peons.
Though the aforesaid irregularity attributed
to you is of serious nature, considering the overall
facts and circumstances of the case, it has been
decided to close the matter by 'warning' you.
Hence, you are hereby warned to be careful,
so as to avoid recurrence of such irregularities in
future.
Yours faithfully,
Executive Director (Personnel)
18. A careful reading of the aforesaid warning letter also
shows that it is nowhere mentioned that the years so certified by
the certifying officer were found to be incorrect. Instead, it is
mentioned that while issuing the certificate, the instructions
contained in the letter dated 15.06.2011 were not followed.
Thus, we find no flaw in the order of learned Single Judge in
accepting the experience certificates filed by the writ petitioners
which were issued by the competent officers.
19. The matter may be viewed from another angle. If the
Corporation took a stand before the writ court that the writ
petitioners have not worked for the requisite period while
inserting paragraph No.3 in the counter, being custodian of
records, it was obligatory for a model Corporation to spell out
how many years of service the writ petitioners have put in. In
the absence of showing any such duration, which Corporation
ought to have shown, the writ court has rightly relied upon the
certificates on the strength of which the writ petition was filed.
At the cost of repetition, it is worth noting that those certificates
were not issued during the pendency of the writ petition and
were cancelled subsequently and such cancellation will not
improve the case of the Corporation.
20. So far the case of one of the writ petitioners, namely
Sri S. Vishwanadham, is concerned, it is seen that to rectify the
typographical error of date of initial engagement of 01.04.2007 in
place of 01.04.2001, I.A.(SR)No.110804 of 2024 was filed in the
writ proceedings, but the said interlocutory application could not
be formally allowed. However, if the pleadings of the said
interlocutory application are tested on the anvil of the experience
certificate, it is clear that the error mentioned in the date of
engagement is a typographical error and the said writ petitioner
also worked for more than five years as on the cut-off date.
Thus, in review jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge has
committed an error in depriving Sri S. Vishwanadham from the
fruits of the main order passed in W.P.No.2288 of 2013. Hence,
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2023
in W.P.No.2288 of 2013 is set aside.
21. So far the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Mohd.Mynuddin (supra) is concerned, the law is well settled
that ordinarily in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Courts should
issue directions to consider the case of the petitioners and not
issue a mandamus to appoint or absorb them. Considering the
aforesaid, we deem it proper to modify the order of the learned
Single Judge by directing as under:
1. Since it is not in dispute that the writ petitioners have
already passed their written examination, interview
and medical examination, they shall not be again
subjected to those examinations.
2. The experience/working of the writ petitioners as on
the cut-off date shall be considered on the basis of
experience certificates filed with the writ petition and
then the respondents shall consider the writ
petitioners and pass appropriate orders of absorption
as per the aforesaid policy within ninety days from the
date of receiving the copy of this order.
22. With the aforesaid directions, the writ appeals are disposed
of. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 10.02.2025
Myk
