The petitioner assailed the recruitment test and selection process for Temporary Assistants in the LIC of India alleging malpractice and question paper leakage. The Court observed that allegations were substantially denied and found no prejudice to candidates. The writ petition was disposed of by making an interim order absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 6738 of 2009 (J)
PETITIONER(S):
1. SHEEJA.N, W/O.C.SUNDARESHAN, AGED 39 YEARS, ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, KILIMANOOR BRANCH,TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT RESHMI, TC 29/1658, PALKULANGARA, TRIVANDRUM-8.
2. RAJIKA.R., W/O.LOUJIKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, ASSISTANT (TEMPORARY), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ATTINGAL BRANCH, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT TC 13/1496, BURMA ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-11.
BY SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS.SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SRI.SURAJ.S
RESPONDENT(S):
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, LIC OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI.
2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, DIVISIONAL OFFICE OF LIC OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 6738 of 2009 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
| EXT. P1 | : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.1.2002 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER. |
|---|---|
| EXT. P2 | : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.2.2002 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER. |
| EXT. P3 | : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER. |
| EXT. P4 | : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER. |
| EXT. P5 | : TRUE COPY OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR WRITTEN TEST ENCLOSED WITH THE HALL TICKETS. |
| EXT. P6 | : TRUE COPY OF PRESS REPORTS RELATING TO THE LEAKAGE OF QUESTION PAPER. |
| EXT. P7 | : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.2.2009. |
| RESPONDENT | S' EXHIBITS : |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| EXT.R1A: | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT O.P.NO.2009 OF 1999. |
DATED | 1.12.1999 IN |
| EXT.R1B: | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT O.P.NO.14277 OF 1999. |
DATED | 11.1.2000 IN |
| EXT.R1C: | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF 2000. |
DATED | 1.6.2000 IN W.A.NO.818 |
| EXT.R1D: | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT S.L.P.NO.16238 OF 2000 OF |
DATED THE H |
12.4.2001 IN ON’BLE SUPREME COURT. |
| EXT.R1E: | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT W.A.NO.64 OF 2000. |
DATED | 11.11.2002 IN |
| EXT.R1F: | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT W.A.NO.2273 OF 1999. |
DATED | 5.1.2000 IN |
| //TRUE COPY// |
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
W.P.(C) No.6738 of 2009
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2016
JUDGMENT
Prayers in this writ petition are as follows:(i) To declare that the written test for recruitment to the category of Assistants conducted by the respondents on 31.08.2008 and 12.10.2008 are neither proper or legal and to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order nor direction commanding the respondents to conduct a fresh written test by a competent government agency; (ii) Alternatively, to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order or direction commanding the respondents to arrange for proper evaluation of the OMR sheets submitted by the petitioners by an independent agency and to include the name of the petitioners in the short list of candidates for interview based on their merit; (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order or direction commanding the respondents to conduct an enquiry by an independent and fair investigating agency regarding the depth and extend of leakage of question papers for the written test for recruitment to the category of Assistants held on 31.08.2008 and for identifying the individuals responsible for such leakage, and to direct further legal action in this regard.
(iv) Declare that the petitioners will be entitled to the protection and benefits of Ss. 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and to direct the
W.P.(C) No.6738 of 2009
-2-
respondents not to retrench the petitioners except in accordance with those statutory provisions;
(vi) grant the costs of this Original Application.
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.
W.P.(C) No.6738 of 2009 -3-
affected due to the sudden instruction that they should mark the answer sheets with “black ball point pen” and not with HB pencils, as shown in the Hall ticket. It was further contended that the examination conducted in the Kollam centre had been cancelled, due to some untoward incident which happened at that centre. A fresh examination was conducted only for that centre, which has seriously prejudiced the conduct of the uniform examination procedure. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the examination was conducted by a private agency. In spite of the serious allegations raised as regards the conduct of the examination, not even an enquiry was conducted by the first respondent into the said allegations.
permitted to continue on the basis of an interim order of this Court dated 24.03.2009, on temporary basis, since sufficient vacancies are in existence to accommodate them. It is submitted that the petitioners services have not been
W.P.(C) No.6738 of 2009
-4-
terminated.
first respondent, contending that the test for regular appointment had been conducted on 12.10.2008. It is stated that the procedure was carried out by a private agency, subject to the strict supervision and control by the first respondent and that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the examination. It is further stated that though the Hall ticket instructs that marking the OMR sheet should be made by HB pencil and the answer booklet instructed that the answers to be filled up by black ball point pen, all the candidates who attended the examination and participated in the process were allowed to mark the OMR sheets with HB pencils and no answer sheet of any candidate had been left unscrutinized. It is further stated that the examination in Kollam had been cancelled due to some untoward circumstance, and that there is no attempt to favour the candidates at the Kollam centre. It is further stated that the
W.P.(C) No.6738 of 2009 -5-
petitioners who had not been successful in the selection
process cannot challenge the process after having participated therein.
either side. The examination which is challenged was conducted in the year 2008. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit substantially denying all the allegations of malpractices in the conduct of the selection process. It is further contended that the discrepancy with regard to the use of HB pencil and blank ball point pen in marking the OMR sheets has not prejudiced any candidate and that irrespective of the marking in the OMR sheet with HB pencil or blank ball point, marks have been awarded. It is also stated that an external agency was entrusted with the job of scrutinizing applications, conducting the written test and evaluation of marks on the basis of a short listing by the Central Office of the Corporation after verifying their credentials. It is stated that no objection to the conduct of the test had been raised by
W.P.(C) No.6738 of 2009 -6-
the petitioners at the relevant time. With regard to the continuance of the petitioners in service, it is stated that the petitioners are continuing on temporary basis, on the strength of the interim order dated 24.03.2009.
In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the challenge to the selection process cannot be successfully sustained. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, making the interim order dated 24.03.2009 absolute.
Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE
vs
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the challenge to the selection process for recruitment as Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India can be successfully sustained.
Whether the discrepancies in the instructions for marking answer sheets and OMR sheets prejudiced the candidates.
Whether to make the interim order dated 24.03.2009 absolute.
Sheeja.N & Ors.
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
