HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.28206 OF 2014 Between:- V.Ambha Shankar.
…petitioner And Life Insurance Corporation of India Rep.by its Chairman, Central Office, Yogakshema, Mumbai and others.
…Respondents.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.28206 OF 2014 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.Raj Kiran, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not awarding 5 marks to the correct answers in respect of the petitioner’s answer script and not appointing him as sub-staff pursuant to employment notice dated 17.07.1996 as arbitrary and illegal.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondents issued employment notice dated 1.10.1991 for recruitment to the post of Sub-Staff (peon), but cancelled the same. Subsequently, a fresh employment notice was issued on 17.07.1996 by the respondents. The petitioner made an application to the 3rd respondent; hall ticket was issued to him; he appeared for the written test along with other candidates on 29.12.1996; and he has become successful in the written test. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued call letter to the petitioner to appear for the interview for which he attended. While so, some of the candidates approached this Court by filing writ petitions seeking to declare the result of the written test and the interview held pursuant to the notification dated 17.07.1996. It seems, some of the adhoc employees also approached this Court and filed writ petitions, which were disposed of on 20.12.2002. Challenging the said order, the respondent-Corporation filed Writ Appeal No.353 of 2003 and batch and by order dated 10.06.2003, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-Corporation filed SLP before the Supreme Court, in which, the respondent- Corporation filed affidavit stating that the respondent- Corporation has formulated a scheme whereunder all the eligible Class-IV employees and also the candidates, who had appeared for the examination for recruitment as Class- IV employees in 1996 shall be absorbed. Considering the same, the Apex Court disposed of the SLP and directed the respondent-Corporation as under: “the respondents shall be absorbed in terms of extracted policy as expeditiously as practicable and in any case not later than six months from today. In so far as open market candidates, who appeared in the written test at the relevant time and who were successful in the same shall be called for interview along with temporary employees. Such of those persons who shall be successful in the interview shall be offered appointment and the conditions as applicable to temporary persons in so far as offer of appointment shall be applicable to the open market person as well.” In pursuance of the said order, the respondent-Corporation conducted one time limited examination for those temporary persons, who are working in LIC of India and interviews were conducted for those temporary persons, who were successful in the written test as well as open market candidates separately in July, 2011 and results were declared separately. The 3rd respondent displayed a list of only 200 candidates as selected in various categories and the name of the petitioner did not find place. Some of the candidates approached this Court by filing writ petition seeking direction to publish the ranking list and this Court vide order dated 22.2.2012 directed the respondent- Corporation to publish the list within four weeks and the respondent-Corporation published the ranking list. As per the ranking list, the petitioner secured 72 marks in the written test and 13 marks in interview. The petitioner along with others approached this Court seeking direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider their cases to the posts fell vacant due to non-joining of selected-appointed candidates. On 7.4.2014, the petitioner made an application to the 3rd respondent under Right to Information Act to furnish his answer script and accordingly, the same was furnished to him. On verifying the same, he found that the answer script of the petitioner was not properly evaluated, though he correctly answered the questions and that he is entitled to 5 more marks. If he gets 5 more marks, he will be entitled for appointment as Sub-Staff. Thereafter, he made another application on 7-9-2014 to the respondents seeking re-valuation of his answer paper, but the respondents did not act upon it. Further, only 350 candidates have joined out of 393 empanelled candidates, which shows that there are remaining 43 vacancies of Sub-Staff in the respondent- Corporation.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Corporation has committed error in not evaluating his answer script properly and in not awarding marks to the correct answers and thus, he was denied the right of employment and that the representation dated 7-9- 2014 made by him in this regard has not been considered so far.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the representation dated 7-9-2014 made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
R. KANTHA RAO,J Date: 20-09-2014 Shr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.28206 OF 2014 Date: 20-09-2014 Shr.