W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji, J.
Judgment Date: 2024-03-06
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed; no relief granted to petitioners.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jacob A J
Rajesh P R

Respondents

Life Insurance Corporation of India
The Zonal Manager, LIC of India
The Senior Divisional Officer, Divisional Office, Jeevan P B No. 02, Kovilakathumpadam, Thrissur 680 022
LIC of India Branch No. 1 (782), Thrissur
LIC of India, Wadakkanchery Branch

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.M. Manoj
• Hamzath Ali V.K.

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Easwaran, SC, LIC of India

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns two petitioners working as temporary sub-staff (peon category) in LIC of India, challenging Ext.P7 and Ext.P7(A) rejection of their applications for recruitment following a notification issued on 20 May 2011 (Ext.P1). The petitioners contended that, having completed five years of service as on 18 January 2011, they met the eligibility criteria (minimum qualification of 9th standard) and should be allowed to participate in the recruitment process for peon posts, as guided by the Supreme Court’s directions in DV Anil Kumar and related judgments. They argued that the LIC undertook a limited written examination and subsequent recruitment under a one-time measure, with the onus on candidates to prove tenure, and that other similar Kerala and Madhya Pradesh precedents (Manikandan M; Rakesh Yadav) supported a retrospective opportunity to reappear for examination. The respondents countered that the Supreme Court’s one-time recruitment order predicated on strict eligibility and documentary proof; they also emphasized delay and laches given that action was sought many years after the notification, and after appointments had been made. The court ultimately held that, despite favorable authorities, the petitioners’ delay bars relief, and the writ petition is dismissed with no remedy granted to them."

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that, having served as temporary employees for over five years as on 18.01.2011, they qualified under the notification Ext.P1 and should be permitted to appear for the examination. They relied on judicial precedents allowing reexamination or separate examinations in similar LIC vacancies (DV Anil Kumar, Manikandan M) and on the Madhya Pradesh and Kerala authorities that granted opportunities on a one-time basis. They contended the onus to provide authentic proof of five years’ service lay with the candidates and that the respondents’ rejection of their applications without explanation violated legal norms.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintained that the Supreme Court’s one-time recruitment directive required proper documentary proof and that those who did not satisfy conditions could be disqualified. They argued that the petitioners approached the court after a prolonged delay (more than a decade) and that the appropriate remedy, if any, was not available given the finalization of appointments. They emphasized laches and the need to adhere to the notified recruitment process as per Ext.P1 and related orders.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
LIC of India v. DV Anil Kumar	2011 SCC Online SC 1602	Mentioned Only	Cited as a precedent in arguments for potential reexamination but the court did not apply it to grant relief due to delay.
Manikandan M v. Life Insurance Corporation of India	2013 SCC Online Kerala 9367	Positive	Cited as a Kerala precedent where a separate examination was allowed, supporting the proposition of granting a reexamination opportunity in similar circumstances.
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Rakesh Yadav	2021 SCC Online MP 2084	Positive	Cited to reflect a Division Bench decision directing a separate examination as a remedy in analogous factual situations.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 13537 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - **`1 JACOB A J. AGED 46 YEARS S/O. JOHNY RESIDING AT ARIMBOOR HOUSE, AVINISSERY P O., THRITHAMARASERY TEMPLE ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 313.`** - **`2 RAJESH P R., AGED 44 YEARS S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT PARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADUTHARA, WADKANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR 680 582.`** ``` BY ADVS. P.M.MANOJ HAMZATH ALI V.K. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, WEST WING, YOGEKSHEMA, JEEVAN BHIMA MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021.`** - **`2 THE ZONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA , P B NO. 1133, OPPOSITE COLLEGE GROUND M G ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 011.`** - **`3 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN P B NO. 02, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THRISSUR 680 022.`** - **`4 LIC OF INDIA BRANCH NO. 1 (782), THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER , SHAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, KUNNANKULANGARA PIN-680 001.`** W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022 2 ``` 5LIC OF INDIA, WADAKKANCHERY BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY IT CHIEF MANAGER, I FLOOR, TRIPURA SUNDARI BUILDINGS , THRISSUR SHORANUR, RD, MULAGUNNATHUKAVU, WADAKKANCHERY, KERALA 680 581. ``` ``` BY ADV SHRI.S.EASWARAN, SC, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022 3 **BASANT BALAJI , J. -----------------------------W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022 ----------------------------------Dated this the 6th day of March 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are working as temporary employees in the category of sub-staff under the 1st respondent Corporation. On 20.5.2011, a notification was published inviting applications for appointment to the post of Peon. The petitioners also applied, along with other candidates. However, the petitioners were denied the opportunity to appear for the examination conducted on 23.6.2011 for reasons unknown. The 1st petitioner was working from 13.3.2005 at LIC of India, Branch No.1 at Thrissur, and the 2nd petitioner was working from 4.3.2003 at Wadakkancherry Branch, and both the petitioners were drawing a salary till 2020. On 20.5.2011 Ext.P1 notification was published for recruiting Peons to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in the light of the judgment in **LIC of India V. DV Anil Kumar** [2011 SCC Online SC 1602] Civil Appeal W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022 4 Nos.953 - 968 of 2005 dated 18.01.2011. In the light of the notification, the petitioners, who have completed 5 years as on 18.01.2011, have the minimum qualification of 9th standard pass and within the age limit for recruitment, applied to the post of Peon as prescribed in Ext.P1. The petitioners also produced certificates to show that they had been working for more than five years as of 18.1.2011. But the petitioners were not called for the examination and were not given any reason why they were excluded. Though the petitioners filed representations before the 3rd respondent, no action was taken. In the said circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P7 and P7(A) and to direct the 3rd respondent to grant an appointment as given in Ext.P9 order of this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in **Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Rakesh Yadav [2021 SCC Online MP 2084],** Writ Appeal No.1094 of 2021, wherein W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022 5 the court had granted an opportunity to the petitioners to appear for reexamination. Likewise, this Court in **Manikandan M v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [2013 SCC Online Kerala 9367]** R.P. No.937 of 2012 in W.P.(C) No.17984 of 2011, allowed the revision petitioners to appear for a separate examination to be conducted by the LIC for absorption to the post of peon. The learned counsel contends that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of the judgment in **D.V Anil Kumar** (Supra). 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it is contended that the Honourable Supreme Court of India, while disposing of Civil Appeal Nos.953-968 of 2005 mentioned above, had directed the LIC of India, as a one time measure to recruit all the eligible temporary Class IV employees who are working in the LIC of India for more than five years as on 18.1.2011 and who had possessed the minimum eligible qualification and age at the relevant time of their entry into the LIC of India by holding a limited written examination in the vernacular language with the limited syllabus to be W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022 6 announced in advance. The successful candidates shall be called for the interview, and those who have been successful shall be appointed. Accordingly, a notification was published on 20.5.2011. In the notification, it is stated explicitly that the candidates have to submit copies of proof of working in the LIC for more than five years as on 18.1.2011 duly signed by the Chief Manager/Senior/Branch Manager in charge of the branch office. The onus of furnishing authentic documentary proof for the same at the time of submission of the application shall be on the candidates. 4. As far as the case of the 1st petitioner is concerned, only a few payment vouchers from 2006 were attached to the application form, and the then Chief Manager, Thirissur, BO No.1, has certified that no other records are available to establish that he had worked on daily wages basis for five years as on 18.1.2011. In the case of the 2nd petitioner also, a few copies of the budget control register of the year 2006 were attached to the application form, and the then Senior Branch Manager Wadakkancherry had certified that no other records W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022 7 are available to show that the 2nd petitioner has been working on daily wage basis for the last five years as on 18.1.2011. In the notification itself, it is stated that the candidates who do not satisfy the eligibility conditions are liable to be disqualified at any stage of selection. 5. The Division Bench, taking note of the fact that there was evidence to prove that they had actually worked for five years, and since there were only deficiencies in the certificates produced, concurred with the findings of the learned Single Judge and directed a separate examination to be conducted, which is confirmed in Ext.P9. The said writ petition, though filed as early as in the year 2011 itself, the Writ Appeal was disposed of only in 2021. 6. As far as Ext.P10 is concerned, the petitioner has approached this Court, immediately after the examination notification was published in 2011 itself and this Court in 2013, through revision petition order, has directed to conduct a separate examination to the petitioner in that case. As far as the petitioners herein are concerned, W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022 8 though the notification was published in the year 2011, they preferred an application seeking the opportunity to write the examination only on 11.2.2022 , and their rejection as per Exts.P7 and P7(A) was only on 18.03.2022. Thus, there has been delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching the 1st respondent and this Court. It has been more than 12 years after the examination was conducted by the respondents and appointments were made. A person who has slept over his rights for a long period of more than ten years cannot be granted any relief from this Court. If the petitioners were really aggrieved, they would have approached this Court within a reasonable time frame from which they were not allowed to participate in the examination as directed by the apex court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief at this stretch of time. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Sd/- **BASANT BALAJI , JUDGE** NS W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13537/2022`** |**`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`**|| |---|---| |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED`**| ||**`20.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT LIC`**| ||**`OF INDIA.`**| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.07.2011.`**| |**`Exhibit P3`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED`**| ||**`31.05.2011 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ALONG WITH`**| ||**`NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.`**| |**`Exhibit P4`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE ALONG WITH`**| ||**`PROFORMA FOR PROOF OF TEMPORARY, EMPLOYMENT`**| ||**`CERTIFICATE.`**| |**`Exhibit P5`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED`**| ||**`11.02.2022.`**| |**`Exhibit P6`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED`**| ||**`11.02.2022.`**| |**`Exhibit P7`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION COMMUNICATION`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 18.03.2022`**| ||**`WITH RESPECT TO THE IST PETITIONER.`**| |**`Exhibit P7 (A)`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION COMMUNICATION`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 18.03.2022`**| ||**`WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.`**| |**`Exhibit P8`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2011`**| ||**`IN CA NO. 953 OF 968 OF 2005 IN DV ANIL`**| ||**`KUMAR AND OTHERS VS LIC OF INDIA (AS`**| ||**`AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF SUPREME COURT`**| ||**`OF INDIA).`**| |**`Exhibit P9`**|**`A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2021 IN`**| ||**`LIFE INSURANCE, CORPORATION OF INDIA AND`**| ||**`OTHERS VS RAKESH YADAV AND OTHERS IN W.A.`**| ||**`NO. 1094 OF 2021 BY THE HIGH COURT OF`**| ||**`MADYAPRADESH AT JABALPUR (AS AVAILABLE FROM`**| ||**`THE WEBSITE OF THE MADYAPRADESH HIGH COURT`**| ||**`WITHOUT CAUSE TITLE).`**| |**`Exhibit P10`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2013`**| ||**`IN R.P. NO. 937 OF 2012 IN WPC NO. 179 84`**| ||**`OF 2011.`**| |**`Exhibit P11`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT`**| ||**`HAVING THE DATE OF DELIVERY ON 25.07.2011`**|