NALINI Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two writ petitioners whose writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge are the appellants in this appeal. They applied for appointment as Assistants under the Life Insurance Corporation of India, in pursuance of Ext. P1 notification dtd. 27/7/1970, which called for applications for the post. The notification was published in the 'Hindu'. It is enough to notice that one of the qualifications which show the petitioners possessed, which was insisted on, was that the candidates should be graduates. There was no requirement of qualification that graduates should possess a First or Second Class or obtain a minimum number of marks in one or more subjects or parts in the examination. By Ext. P2 circular dtd. 21/6/1971 the qualifications were revised. Clause (xi) of Ext. P2 notification which is material, may be noticed.

(2.) We cannot agree with the learned Judge. It is one thing to say that inclusion in a list cannot or does not confer a right or title to appointment; but it is a far cry therefrom to state that the appointing authority has the right to pick and choose the persons from the ranked list as it pleases. In the instant cases, it is not the case of the Life Insurance Corporation that they are not honouring, or have not honoured, Ext. P15 list prepared on the basis of Ext. P1. Indeed the petitioners' averments and allegations in regard to Exts. P5 and P11 coupled with paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit field by the L.I.C., establish that from out of the rank list the L.I.C. has chosen to appoint persons who were lower in rank in the list to the petitioners. Ext. P5 contains a list of 13 persons who were junior to the 1st petitioner and Ext. P11 contains a list of 4 persons who are junior to the 2nd petitioner. Counsel for the Corporation contended that in the absence of statutory rule or regulation governing the selection, the Corporation was not bound to respect Ext. P15 list. We cannot agree. The selections were made and the rank list was compiled in pursuance of Ext. P1 notification and the representations made to the applicants as to the qualifications and other requirements for recruitment. Having voluntarily chosen to limit their power by the said representation and by Ext. P1 notification, the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be heard to say that they are not bound by the list compiled in pursuance of the said notification.

(3.) Counsel for the Corporation next contended that the appointments of the persons shown in Ext. P5 and Ext. P11 were made on certain special considerations as they were persons who had left their services in other Departments and adopted for service in the Corporation. It seems to us to make little difference as to the grounds on which the Corporation violated the order in the rank list. Having chosen to compile the list, the Corporation was bound to respect and follow the same. We are not impressed by the reason put forward for the appointment of the juniors of the petitioners shown in Exts. P5 and P11. We cannot sustain the reason given in Ext. P8 for not appointing the writ petitioner. That seems to be clearly opposed to the express statement in Ext. P2 itself that the revised qualification will not operate on the notification already issued regarding the selection. Ext. P1 notification having been already issued selection in pursuance of the same was to remain unaffected by the revised qualification in Ext. P2.