AZGAR HUSSAIN M D Vs. BRANCH MANAGER LLC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Contending that he was appointed on daily wage basis of Rs. 50/- per day in the office of the first respondent on 31-8-1998 and is continuing as such till the date of filing of this writ petition in September, 1999, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize his services as Typist-Cum-Assistant in the office of the first respondent.

(2.) On behalf of the first respondent, the Regional Manager (Legal)filed his counter-affidavit, contending that the allegation of the petitioner that he was appointed on 31-8-1998 on daily wage basis as Typist-Cum-Assistant is not correct, and that the services of the petitioner were utilized only as a job typist, and that there is no post like Typist-Cum-Assistant in the office of the first respondent and that recruitment to the posts in the Life Insurance Corporation are governed by LIC of India Recruitment (of Class-Ill and Class-IV Staff) Instructions, 1993, and that as per those instructions, recruitment to the post of typist can be made only after holding a pre-recruitment written test, speed test and interview, and those tests will be held to the candidates who possess the prescribed minimum educational qualifications, and their age limit is 30 years, and in any event since the petitioner does not possess the required educational qualifications and is aged 31 years, he is not entitled to be regularized.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner passed Pre-University Examination, which is equivalent to passing of Intermediate, and so the contention of the respondents that the petitioner does not possess the minimum educational qualification prescribed is not correct, and contended that since the petitioner has been working for more than one year, from morning till evening, doing the work of typing in the office of the first respondent, he is entitled to get his services regularized in terms of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court in relation to daily wage workers. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the first respondent (sic. petitioner) was not appointed on daily wage basis to do typing work and was only doing job work as a typist, and so he cannot be said to be a daily wage employee of the first respondent. He also contended that appointments to Class-III and Class-IV posts are governed by the LIC of India Recruitment (of Class-III and Class-IV) Staff Instructions, 1993, Wherein procedure for recruitment of typists is prescribed and if the services of the petitioner are regularized, it would amount to permitting the entry of the petitioner through back door, which is deprecated by the Supreme Court in various decisions. It is also his contention that the said Instructions are statutory in nature as laid down by the Supreme Court in LIC of India vs. M/s. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar. He also relied on Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Virendra Kumar Jayanthibhai Patel., Union of India vs. Harish Balkrishna Mahajan, P. Ravindran vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry and Patna University vs. Dr. Amita Tiwari, and contended that in view of the ratio in the above decisions, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief of regularization of his services.