The Chairman LIC of India and Others v. R. Rajesh Kumar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WA.No.99 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2014 IN WPC 1300/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **- APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE CHAIRMAN L.I.C. OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BEEMA MARG, P.B.NO.19953, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA STATE, PIN 400021.** **2 THE ZONAL MANAGER L.I.C. OF INDIA, SOUTHERN ZONE, L.I.C. BUILDING, P.B.NO.2450, 153, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU STATE, PIN 600002.** **3 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER L.I.C. OF INDIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN** ## **- RESPONDENT PETITIONER:** **R.RAJESH KUMAR AGED 38 YEARS S/O.V.RAJAN, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, L.I.C. OF INDIA, KOLLAM BRANCH, RESIDING AT MANNAR VEEDU, NELLIKUNNAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691520.** **BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SHAJI** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2020, ALONG WITH WA.102/2015, THE COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 -:2:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WA.No.102 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 3845/2012 DATED 18-12-2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **- APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE CHAIRMAN, LIC OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BEEMA MARG, P.B.NO.19953, MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA STATE, PIN-400 021.** **2 THE ZONAL MANAGER L.I.C.OF INDIA, SOUTHERN ZONE LIC BUILDING, P.B.NO.2450, 153, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU STATE, PIN-600 002.** **3 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER L.I.C.OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, PATTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN695 004.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN** WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 -:3:- ## **- RESPONDENT PETITIONER:** **R.RAJESH KUMAR AGED 38 YEARS S/O.V.RAJAN, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, L.I.C.OF INDIA, KOLLAM BRANCH, RESIDING AT MANNAR VEEDU, NELLIKUNNAM.P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 520.** **BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SHAJI** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-062020, ALONG WITH WA.99/2015, THE COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 -:4:- ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 14[th ] day of July, 2020 ## _**Shaffique, J.**_ These appeals are filed against common judgment dated 18/12/2014 in WP(C) Nos.3845/2012 and 1300/2013. The question considered in the writ petitions was whether a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) working as Development Officer under the Life Insurance Corporation of India having more than 8 years of service should satisfy the cost ratio appraisal for the last three years for participating in the selection to the post of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales). The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment found that petitioner is entitled for promotion as Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) in accordance with the eligibility conditions prescribed in Ext.P2 and without insisting the prescription relating to cost ratio newly introduced as per Ext.P6 clarification. Accordingly, direction had been issued to the respondents/appellants to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) reserved for SC candidates taking into account the marks WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 -:5:- obtained in the interview. 2. The short facts in the case would disclose that Ext.P2 reflects the promotion policy of Life Insurance Corporation of India in respect of employees belonging to SC/ST. Clause 4 relates to selection procedure and the eligibility condition reads as under: ## _“4. Selection Procedure_ ## _(I) Eligibility_ _All SC/ST candidates who have completed 8 years In their cadre as Development Officers may be considered for the promotion to the cadre of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales). However, cases of SC/ST candidates, who have completed 5 years but less than 8 years in their cadre and have worked within the prescribed cost ratio during each of the last three appraisal years and on the basis of the performance during the last three appraisal years have brought in an Average Scheduled First Year Premium Income of not less than Rs. 9,00,000/- and Average Number of Lives not less than 450 and whose lapse ratio is less than 15% in each of those three appraisal years where a period of 12 months or more has elapsed from the date of completion of the appraisal year till 31.10.2011 may also be considered.”_ While so, advertisements were issued inviting applications from candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Manager (Sales). Placing reliance upon the eligibility condition as specified under Ext.P2, the petitioner also applied for the post. In terms of WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 -:6:- Ext.P2, petitioner had more than 8 years of service and he was not liable to satisfy the cost ratio necessary for other candidates. In the meantime, Ext.P6 circular was issued by the LIC clarifying that “A _ll SC/ST candidates who have completed 8 years or more service in their cadre as Development Officers and who have worked within the prescribed cost ratio during each of the last three appraisal years may be considered for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Branch Manger (Sales)_ ”. Though the petitioner submitted a representation as Ext.P8 dated 2/2/2012 indicating that in terms of Ext.P2, he is not liable to comply with the cost ratio as stipulated in the circular, by Ext.P9 dated 4/7/2012, LIC rejected his representation pursuant to which he had approached this Court. 3. LIC in their counter affidavit submitted that as per the Special Rules provided for promotion, all the Development Officers who have completed 8 years or more service in their cadre as on 31/10/2011 and who have worked within the prescribed cost ratio during each of the last three appraisal years, were eligible for being considered. However, some relaxation had been given to Development Officers who have completed 5 WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 -:7:- years or more service in their cadre but less than 8 years' service. In respect of SC/ST candidates, the requirement was Average Scheduled First Year Premium Income should be not less than `9 lakhs when it was `10 lakhs for open category candidates and the average number of lives should not be less than 450 when it was 500 for other categories during the previous three appraisal years. Therefore, the contention urged by LIC was that when the Special Rules clearly prescribe the criteria for promotion which has been clarified in Ext.P6, petitioner cannot place reliance on Ext.P2 and contend that the petitioner was exempted from complying with the prescribed cost ratio. Reference is also made to the notification for promotion of Development Officers to the post of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) wherein the above stipulation was clearly mentioned. 4. The learned Single Judge having considered the entire matter found that when Ext.P2 clearly indicates that all SC/ST candidates having completed 8 years in their cadre as Development Officers will be considered for promotion, the same being a special reservation policy of LIC, would apply in the case of petitioner as well. The policy of reservation is an exemption to WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 -:8:- the Special Rules and therefore as long as Ext.P2 is in force and is not modified by yet another Regulation, the scheme for reservation applies to the factual aspects involved in the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that though Ext.P2 forms part of the rules for promotion of Development Officers to the post of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) during the year 2011-2012, the policy decision in giving certain benefits in Ext.P2 was an apparent mistake and it is in the above circumstance that the circular had been issued clarifying the position that no benefit will accrue to SC/ST candidates having completed 8 years of service in the cadre of Development Officer. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Hardev Singh v. Union of India and Another**_ [(2011) 10 SCC 121], especially paragraphs 25 and 26, which reads as under:- _“_ _**25.** In our opinion, it is always open to an employer to change its policy in relation to giving promotion to the employees. This Court would normally not interfere in such policy decisions. We would like to quote the decision of this Court in Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana [(1999) 3 SCC 696 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 824] where this Court had held in para 4 of the judgment that: (SCC p. 699)_ _“4. … When a policy has been declared by the State as to the_ WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 ## -:9:- _manner of filling up the post and that policy is declared in terms of rules and instructions issued to the Public Service Commission from time to time and so long as these instructions are not contrary to the rules, the respondents ought to follow the same.”_ _**26.** Similarly, in Balco Employees' Union v. Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC 333] it has been held that a court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. It is not within the domain of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition.”_ 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that Ext.P11 is the full text of the Rules for Promotion of Development Officers to the cadre of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) - 2011-2012 and document produced as Ext.P2 was part of Ext.P11. Therefore, it is all the more clear that in respect of SC/ST category candidates, the promotion policy clearly indicates that persons who completed 8 years of service will be considered to the post of Assistant Branch Manager and there was no prescription for appraisal of the cost ratio for the previous three years. Learned counsel also points out that during the previous years also, same rules was in force and therefore, the contention that Ext.P2 (Ext.P11) was a mistake cannot be WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 -:10:- accepted. The very policy of the LIC was to provide certain benefit to SC/ST candidates and the same cannot be taken away by issuance of Ext.P6 circular. 7. Ext.P11 is the rules for promotion of Development Officers to the cadre of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) during 2011-12. The conditions of suitability has been mentioned under sub clause (1) of Clause (E) which reads as under:- _“1. All the Development Officers who have completed 8 years' or more service in their cadre as on 31/10/2011 and who have worked within the prescribed cost ratio during each of the last three appraisal years”._ 8. Sub clause (3) further indicated that “ _if any Development Officer has not worked within the prescribed cost ratio (expense limit) applicable to him in an appraisal year which has fallen due by the time his promotion is to be effected, he will not be considered for promotion_ ”. Clause (H) relates to reservation, which reads as under; ## _“_ _**(H) RESERVATION**_ _1. For scheduled CasteS/Scheduled Tribes, the number of vacancies in the Zone reserved shall be in accordance with the rules/instructions issued by the Personnel Department of Central Office from time to time”._ 9. The draft notification which forms part of Ext.P11 is at Annexure 1, which is more or less same and the applications had WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 -:11:- been invited from Development Officers who have completed 8 years of service or more and who had worked within the prescribed cost ratio during the previous three appraisal years. Along with Ext.P11, special provisions had also been annexed regarding reservation in respect of promotion for employees belonging to SC/ST which is the same as Ext.P2, wherein, in the eligibility condition, there is no mention about appraisal of the candidate who had worked within the prescribed cost ratio during the last three appraisal years. Therefore, when the Rules for selection of SC/ST candidates form part of the Rules for promotion of Development Officers, in respect of SC/ST candidates, a different criteria had been followed. The contention of the LIC, is that by mistake the criteria for considering the cost ratio for the last three appraisal years, in respect of SC/ST candidates having 8 years service or more, was not included. The respondent herein had produced Ext.P12 which is the promotion policy of the year 2009-10 in respect of Development Officers. During the said year also, the Special Rules had been formulated for SC/ST candidates and there was no mention about appraisal on account of cost ratio. However, during the year 2012-13, while WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 -:12:- issuing rules relating to promotion of Development Officers, which is produced as Ext.P13, in respect of SC/ST candidates, there is a change in policy and it is specifically stated that such SC/ST candidates who have completed 8 years or more service should have worked within the prescribed cost ratio during each of the last three appraisal years which also requires to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Branch Manger (Sales). 10. From the materials placed on record, it is rather clear that LIC had a policy to relax certain conditions as far as SC/ST candidates were concerned and that is the reason for not mentioning anything about the cost ratio appraisal for SC/ST candidates having service more than 8 years in the rules provided for them during the years 2009-10 and 2011-12. A change in policy is reflected only during the year 2012-13. Therefore, as contended by the LIC, it is not a mistake whereas that was a policy prevailing at the relevant time which was accepted by LIC as well. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant however would submit that if Ext.P2 (P11) is not considered as a mistake, by WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 -:13:- issuing Ext.P6, the policy of LIC had been changed and it is contended that such changes could be made during the selection process for which he placed reliance on the judgment in _**Hardev Singh's case**_ (supra). In fact, Ext.P6 is only a clarification issued by the Head Office when a request has been made from Zonal Officers as to whether SC/ST candidates should be considered for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) irrespective of the prescribed cost ratio norms. But what exactly was the reservation policy as far as SC/ST candidates were concerned during the relevant time is reflected in Ext.P2 (P11). Once such a relaxation had been granted during the selection process, insisting for a different criteria by way of a clarification cannot be sustained. Therefore, Ext.P6 is not a change in policy whereas it is only an interpretation of the provisions governing reservation. Even in _**Hardev Singh's case**_ (supra), though the Apex Court had observed that there could be a change in a policy decision in relation to giving promotion to employees and the Court would not generally interfere in such policy decisions, from paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said judgment, it is evident that the Apex Court was considering an instance where the selection was WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 -:14:- ## conducted after the new policy had come into force. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment are relevant which reads as under:- _**“18.** The main grievance ventilated in the appeal is with regard to change of promotion policy. The case of the appellant is to the effect that after starting the selection process, the respondents could not have changed the policy. According to the appellant, the policy was changed with effect from 1-1-2009, whereas the selection process for promoting the appellant along with other officers of 1973 batch started in December 2008. According to him, relevant material was prepared and placed before the SSB and in fact it convened its meeting and started doing the needful in December 2008 and, therefore, it was not open to the respondents to change the policy after having started the process for selection. The appellant had also relied upon the judgments delivered by this Court to substantiate his case to the effect that after initiating the selection process, the authorities and the SSB should not have given effect to the new policy._ _**19.** Upon perusal of the contents of the counter-affidavit filed and submissions made on behalf of the respondents by the learned Additional Solicitor General, it is clear that the first meeting of the SSB to consider the cases of the appellant and other officers for promotion to the rank of LieutenantGeneral was convened on 9-1-2009, and not prior thereto. The counsel had however, stated that the ministerial staff of the respondents had collected the relevant data in 2008 because relevant material for considering the cases of all the officers concerned was to be placed before the SSB when its meeting was to be convened. For the said reason, the_ WA Nos.99 & 102/2015 ## -:15:- _necessary exercise for collecting the data and putting it in a proper form was done in 2008 but, in fact, the said data was considered by the SSB only when it convened its meeting in January 2009 i.e. after the new policy had come into force.”_ Therefore _**Hardev Singh's case**_ (supra) may not help the appellant in any manner. 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge had not committed any error in issuing the aforesaid directions. Writ appeals are therefore dismissed without any order as to costs. **Sd/-** **A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/GOPINATH P.** Rp True Copy **JUDGE** PS to Judge