LAWS(PAT)-2010-5-44

RAJIB RANJAN SINHA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Decided On May 06, 2010
RAJIB RANJAN SINHA, BALESHWAR PRASAD SINHA Appellant
V/S
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sujeet Kumar Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chandra Jha, learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company).

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as an Insurance Agent by the Company in the light of the advertisement dated 31st October, 1987, Annexure-1 under appointment letter dated 13.4.1988, Annexure-4 to this application. He has filed this writ application for a direction to the Company to consider his case for promotion on the post of Development Officer as he passed the Inspectors Examination conducted by the Insurance Institute of India in November, 1988 which is evident from the certificate dated 19th December, 1988, Annexure-6 as also achieved the target in the year 1990 fixed by the Company for conducting business. In this connection, it is pointed out that perusal of the advertisement dated 31st October, 1987, Annexure-1 itself would indicate that it was stated therein that appointment of Agent is under pilot project and the performance of the selected candidates shall be reviewed every six months and those who perform well they have bright future in the Insurance Industry. Further reference is being made to Clause (12) of the appointment letter dated 13.4.1988, Annexure-4 and it is submitted that Insurance Agents who complete their full training shall be awarded certificate of proficiency testifying their competency as a General Insurance Agent and may be considered for appointment as Development Officer on probation in due course of time subject to the trainee passing the Licentiate/Development Officers Examination. With reference to the aforesaid prescription in the advertisement and Clause (12) of the appointment letter, Annexure-4 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has legitimate expectation for being considered for appointment as Development Officer in the Company. The Company having not considered his request for appointment as Development Officer, this Court should direct the Company to consider the claim of the petitioner as Development Officer as he had not only passed the Licentiate Examination in December, 1988 but has also completed the target in 1990 and is still serving the Company as a Commission Agent to the satisfaction of the authorities of the Branch to which he is attached. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance is being placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner over the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. U.P. Pariwahan Nigam Shikshit Berojgar Sangh and others, reported in A.I.R. 1955 Supreme Court 1115, paragraphs 9 and 10 as also over the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 paragraphs 46 to 49 and over the judgment of Jitendra Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 161, paragraphs 58 to 66.

(3.) Counsel for the Company has opposed the prayer with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit and states that petitioner was appointed as an Agent in the Company and there being no provision under the appointment rules, Annexure-3 for considering the Commission Agent for appointment on the post of Development Officer, Grade-I & II the case of the petitioner was not considered for such appointment even though he has passed the Licentiate Examination in the year 1988 and has achieved the target in the year 1990. In this connection, he further referred to the Clause of the advertisement which inter alia provides that the applicants for the post of Commission Agent shall not be entitled for claiming any permanent employment with the Company. Learned counsel for the Company also referred to Clause (12) of the appointment letter which provided that petitioner was appointed as an Agent and was governed by the provisions of the Agency Code in force from time to time. He further referred to Clause (14) of the appointment letter which, inter alia, provides that petitioner is appointed as Trainee Marketing Agent with a view to give him training for a professional career Agency in General Insurance Selling and Servicing whereunder the compensation is purely by way of Agency commission. Learned counsel for the Company submitted that the stipulation in Clause (12) of the appointment letter that Company may consider offering appointment as Development Officer on probation in due course is subject to the provisions made in the rules and as the Rules for appointment on the post of Development Officer does not provide for appointment of the Agents the case of the petitioner could not be considered for such appointment. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another (Supra) was considering the case of the trainees who received training in workshop of the Road Transport Corporation in the light of the circular letter dated 21st December, 1977 issued by the Corporation as also by the Directorate of Training that full efforts shall be made to provide the trainees with employment directed that the trainees be given employment. In the case in hand neither in the advertisement nor in the appointment letter any positive statement has been made by the Company that Company shall consider the case of the Commission Agents including petitioner for appointment on the post of Development Officer and there being no provision in the rules for considering the Commission Agent for appointment on the post of Development Officer, I am not in a position to direct the Company to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Development Officer. The case of Uma Devi (Supra) has no application to the facts of the case as in the said case the Honble Supreme Court was considering regularization of the daily-wagers against the substantive vacancy. Petitioner herein is not a daily-wager serving as Development Officer rather he is separate category as he is serving as Commission Agent, as such, the case of Uma Devi has no application to the case in hand.