Temporary LIC employees, denied an ex-officio promotion opportunity due to alleged lack of documentary proof and significant delay in filing, sought writ relief directing appointment under the Supreme Court mandate. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that laches operates as a bar after a decade-long delay.
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 MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 13537 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1JACOB A J.
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. JOHNY RESIDING AT ARIMBOOR HOUSE,
AVINISSERY P O., THRITHAMARASERY TEMPLE ROAD,
SHANTI NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 313.
2RAJESH P R.,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT PARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NADUTHARA, WADKANCHERY P.O.,
THRISSUR 680 582.
BY ADVS.
P.M.MANOJ
HAMZATH ALI V.K.
RESPONDENT/S:
1LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL OFFICE,
5TH FLOOR, WEST WING, YOGEKSHEMA,
JEEVAN BHIMA MARG, NARIMAN POINT,
MUMBAI 400 021.
2THE ZONAL MANAGER,
LIC OF INDIA , P B NO. 1133,
OPPOSITE COLLEGE GROUND M G ROAD,
ERNAKULAM 682 011.
3 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN P B NO. 02, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THRISSUR 680 022.4 LIC OF INDIA BRANCH NO. 1 (782), THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER , SHAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, KUNNANKULANGARA PIN-680 001.W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022
2
5LIC OF INDIA,
WADAKKANCHERY BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY IT CHIEF
MANAGER,
I FLOOR, TRIPURA SUNDARI BUILDINGS ,
THRISSUR SHORANUR, RD, MULAGUNNATHUKAVU,
WADAKKANCHERY, KERALA 680 581.
BY ADV SHRI.S.EASWARAN, SC, LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATION OF INDIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022
3
BASANT BALAJI , J. -----------------------------W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022
Dated this the 6th day of March 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are working as temporary employees in the category of sub-staff under the 1st respondent Corporation. On 20.5.2011, a notification was published inviting applications for appointment to the post of Peon. The petitioners also applied, along with other candidates. However, the petitioners were denied the opportunity to appear for the examination conducted on 23.6.2011 for
reasons unknown. The 1st petitioner was working from 13.3.2005 at LIC of India, Branch No.1 at Thrissur, and the 2nd petitioner was working from 4.3.2003 at Wadakkancherry Branch, and both the petitioners were drawing a salary till 2020. On 20.5.2011 Ext.P1 notification was published for recruiting Peons to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in the light of the judgment in LIC of
India V. DV Anil Kumar [2011 SCC Online SC 1602] Civil Appeal
W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022
4
Nos.953 - 968 of 2005 dated 18.01.2011. In the light of the notification, the petitioners, who have completed 5 years as on 18.01.2011, have the minimum qualification of 9th standard pass and within the age limit for recruitment, applied to the post of Peon as prescribed in Ext.P1. The petitioners also produced certificates to show that they had been working for more than five years as of 18.1.2011. But the petitioners were not called for the examination and were not given any reason why they were excluded. Though the petitioners filed representations before the 3rd respondent, no action was taken. In the said circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P7 and P7(A) and to direct the 3rd respondent to grant an appointment as given in Ext.P9 order of this Court.
[2021 SCC Online MP 2084], Writ Appeal No.1094 of 2021, wherein
W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022
5
the court had granted an opportunity to the petitioners to appear for
reexamination. Likewise, this Court in Manikandan M v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [2013 SCC Online Kerala 9367] R.P. No.937 of 2012 in W.P.(C) No.17984 of 2011, allowed the revision petitioners to appear for a separate examination to be conducted by the LIC for absorption to the post of peon. The learned counsel contends that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of the judgment in D.V Anil Kumar (Supra).
examination in the vernacular language with the limited syllabus to be
W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022
6
announced in advance. The successful candidates shall be called for
the interview, and those who have been successful shall be appointed. Accordingly, a notification was published on 20.5.2011. In the notification, it is stated explicitly that the candidates have to submit copies of proof of working in the LIC for more than five years as on 18.1.2011 duly signed by the Chief Manager/Senior/Branch Manager in charge of the branch office. The onus of furnishing authentic documentary proof for the same at the time of submission of the application shall be on the candidates.
few payment vouchers from 2006 were attached to the application form, and the then Chief Manager, Thirissur, BO No.1, has certified
that no other records are available to establish that he had worked on daily wages basis for five years as on 18.1.2011. In the case of the 2nd petitioner also, a few copies of the budget control register of the year 2006 were attached to the application form, and the then Senior
Branch Manager Wadakkancherry had certified that no other records
W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022
7
are available to show that the 2nd petitioner has been working on
daily wage basis for the last five years as on 18.1.2011. In the notification itself, it is stated that the candidates who do not satisfy the eligibility conditions are liable to be disqualified at any stage of selection.
concurred with the findings of the learned Single Judge and directed a separate examination to be conducted, which is confirmed in Ext.P9.
The said writ petition, though filed as early as in the year 2011 itself,
the Writ Appeal was disposed of only in 2021.
petition order, has directed to conduct a separate examination to the petitioner in that case. As far as the petitioners herein are concerned,
W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022
8
though the notification was published in the year 2011, they preferred
an application seeking the opportunity to write the examination only
on 11.2.2022 , and their rejection as per Exts.P7 and P7(A) was only on 18.03.2022. Thus, there has been delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching the 1st respondent and this Court. It has been more than 12 years after the examination was conducted by
the respondents and appointments were made. A person who has
slept over his rights for a long period of more than ten years cannot be granted any relief from this Court. If the petitioners were really aggrieved, they would have approached this Court within a reasonable time frame from which they were not allowed to participate in the examination as directed by the apex court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief at this stretch of time.
The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
Sd/- BASANT BALAJI , JUDGE
NS
W.P.(C) No.13537 of 2022
9
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13537/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITSExhibit P1 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED |
|---|---|
20.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT LICOF INDIA. |
|
Exhibit P2 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.07.2011. |
Exhibit P3 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED31.05.2011 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ALONG WITHNECESSARY DOCUMENTS. |
Exhibit P4 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE ALONG WITHPROFORMA FOR PROOF OF TEMPORARY, EMPLOYMENTCERTIFICATE. |
Exhibit P5 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED11.02.2022. |
Exhibit P6 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED11.02.2022. |
Exhibit P7 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION COMMUNICATIONISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 18.03.2022WITH RESPECT TO THE IST PETITIONER. |
Exhibit P7 (A) |
A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION COMMUNICATIONISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 18.03.2022WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. |
Exhibit P8 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2011IN CA NO. 953 OF 968 OF 2005 IN DV ANILKUMAR AND OTHERS VS LIC OF INDIA (ASAVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF SUPREME COURTOF INDIA). |
Exhibit P9 |
A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2021 INLIFE INSURANCE, CORPORATION OF INDIA ANDOTHERS VS RAKESH YADAV AND OTHERS IN W.A.NO. 1094 OF 2021 BY THE HIGH COURT OFMADYAPRADESH AT JABALPUR (AS AVAILABLE FROMTHE WEBSITE OF THE MADYAPRADESH HIGH COURTWITHOUT CAUSE TITLE). |
Exhibit P10 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2013IN R.P. NO. 937 OF 2012 IN WPC NO. 179 84OF 2011. |
Exhibit P11 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTHAVING THE DATE OF DELIVERY ON 25.07.2011 |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner can avail of the benefit of the Supreme Court judgment directing recruitment after a delay of more than a decade.
Whether the Supreme Court order mandating a one-time examination applies without delay.
Whether laches bars the writ petition for grant of relief.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
LIC of India V. DV Anil KumarReferred¶28
LIC of India V. DV Anil Kumar [2011 SCC Online SC 1602] Civil Appeal Nos.953 - 968 of 2005 dated 18.01.2011 · Who else cites this
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Rakesh YadavDistinguished¶33
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Rakesh Yadav [2021 SCC Online MP 2084] · Who else cites this
Manikandan M v. Life Insurance Corporation of IndiaDistinguished¶37
Manikandan M v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [2013 SCC Online Kerala 9367] · Who else cites this
D.V Anil KumarRelied on¶38
D.V Anil Kumar (Supra)
JACOB A J.
RAJESH P R.
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
THE ZONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM
THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR
LIC OF INDIA BRANCH NO. 1 (782), THRISSUR
BASANT BALAJI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court