LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. SOURABH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Life Insurance Corporation, a statutory body in appeal for laying a challenge to the learned Single Judge's order dtd. 14/2/2024, whereby the private respondents' W.P. No.102956 of 2022 (S-RES) having been favored, a direction has been issued to the appellant-Corporation "to appoint the writ petitioner as against the permanent vacancy that has arisen after 14/1/2020 till 14/1/2022" (sic). Learned Judge has also prescribed a period of two months for compliance of the order.

(2.) Learned Senior Panel Counsel Prof. A.P. Murari appearing for the appellants vehemently submits that it has been settled position in service jurisprudence that no Court shall direct appointment, although in suitable cases, direction may be issued for consideration of the candidature for appointment. This norm having been violated in framing the judgment in challenge, there is first lacuna apparent on its face. Secondly, Prof. Murari adds that the private respondent herein, who was figuring at Sl.No.43 in the EWS List was not within the zone of consideration, and this aspect having been lost sight of, another error is added. Lastly he submits that the enlistment in the select list does not saddle the employer with a duty to make appointment. In support of his submission a decision of Apex Court in State of Karnatka Vs. Bharathi,2023 SCC Online SC 665. is relied upon. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the appeal, and voiding of the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent per contra make submission with equal vehemence in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He contends that the LIC being State under Article 12 of the Constitution is bound by its representations made to the candidates who on that basis participated in the selection process and therefore cannot take a stand contrary to such representation. Finally he adds that the doctrine of legitimate expectation come to the rescue of his client. Finally he also repeals the contention of the appellants that his client is not within the zone of consideration. In support of his submission, he banks upon a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Vitarelli Vs. Seaton,(1959) 359 US 535. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.