AMRUTLAL B PRAJAPATI Vs. CHAIRMAN LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special civil application was ordered to be heard along with Special Civil Application No. 4239 of 1985, which has been disposed of today as withdrawn.The petitioner, an ex-service man filed this special civil application with prayer for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 4th December, 1985 at Annexure-D. In response to the employment notice of respondent at annexure-A the petitioner submitted application for the post of Assistant under the category of ex-service men. That application came to be rejected under letter annexure-D on the ground that he was not eligible as he was in service on 1.8.1985.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner made manifold submissions in this case in support of the special civil application. But in view of the subsequent events which have taken place, I do not consider it necessary to advert to those contentions.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been selected for appointment in Oriental Insurance Company where he joined service on 11.6.1987. The counsel for the petitioner further stated that the said appointment has been given to the petitioner under the reserved category of ex-service men. In view of the aforesaid fact, now the petitioner is in employment. But the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment has been delayed for a period of more than one year and six months, and as such the petitioner suffered great loss. From the facts of this case it comes out that the last date for submission of the application was 10-9-1985, and the written test was held on 10.11.1985. The petitioner has not given out in the special civil application when the appointments were made on the post of Assistant in the office of the respondent in pursuance of the employment notice at Annexure-A. In absence of these facts it is difficult to accept that the petitioner would have suffered nonemployment for more than one year and six months. Be that as it may. Otherwise also it is only hypothetical submission made, because even if the petitioner would have been called for the written test and interview for the post of Assistant, he may or may not have been selected. The selections have already been made long back, and nothing now survives in this special civil application. The petitioner being an ex-service man was only interested in some civil employment, which he has got. Otherwise also if such claim is accepted, then this Court may give direction to proceed with the selection process only for the petitioner, though all the posts published in annexure-A would have been filled in long back. To give direction only to take routine test and interview for one person cannot be said to be real selection on merits, as no body will be there to compete with the petitioner. Still, there would be no guarantee that the petitioner will be selected. There is yet another aspect, which needs to be referred to. It is not the case of the petitioner that after publication of notice annexure-A till date no other advertisement has been issued for employment by respondent. So it is also not the case of the petitioner that he was only interested in the employment of L.I.C. Above all, it is also not the case of the petitioner that employment with L.I.C. would have been better, with reference to financial benefits etc., than the employment with Oriental Insurance Company. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts of this case, I do not find any substantial grievance of the petitioner survives in this case.