Allowed

Insurance Corporation v. S.Geetha

Madras HC18 Jul 2024WA/205/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ appeals challenging an order by the Single Judge that quashed a recruitment notification. The judgment held the writ court erred in quashing the notification regarding selected candidates not impleaded as parties while denying the specific relief sought by the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The writ court's order dated 17.08.2000 was set aside; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Insurance Corporation Vs S.Geetha — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.Nos.205 of 2013 & 1468 of 2000

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.07.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.A.Nos.205 of 2013 and 1468 of 2000 and

¶7

M.P.Nos.01 of 2013 & C.M.P.No.12895 of 2000

¶8

Insurance Corporation Employees' Union, Regd.No.2360/MDS, Represented by its General Secretary, 93, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ... Appellant in W.A.No.205 of 2013

¶9

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Represented by the Chairman, LIC Building, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

¶10

The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Madras Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Bridge Station Road, Sellur, Madurai. ... Appellants 1 & 2 in W.A.No.1468 of 2000

¶11

Vs.

¶12

S.Geetha

¶13

The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Represented by its Chairman, LIC Buildings, Anna Road, Madras - 2.

¶14

The Senior Divisional Officer,

¶15

Page No.1 of 6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.A.Nos.205 of 2013 & 1468 of 2000

¶18

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madras Divisional Office, 'Jeevan Prakash', Bridge Station Road, Sellur, P.B.No.16, Madurai - 625 002.

¶19

The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, New Delhi. ... Respondents 1 to 4 in W.A.No.205 of 2013

¶20

S.Geetha

¶21

The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, New Delhi. ... Respondents 1 & 2 in W.A.No.1468 of 2013 Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 17.08.2000 passed in W.P.No.17306 of 1993. For Appellants : Mr.K.Srinivasamoorthy for M/s.Row and Reddy [in both W.A's] For R1 : Mr.R.Singaravelan Senior Counsel [in both W.A's] for Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan For R2 to R4 : Mr.D.Muthukumar [in both W.A's]

¶22

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶23

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶24

The intra-court appeals on hand have been instituted challenging the

¶25

writ order dated 17.08.2000 in W.P.No.17306 of 1993.

¶26

The first respondent instituted the writ proceedings seeking for

¶27

Page No.2 of 6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.A.Nos.205 of 2013 & 1468 of 2000

¶30

writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the records including mark sheet before this Court and consequently select the first respondent/writ petitioner to the post of Assistant under the quota prescribed for Backward Class Community.

¶31

Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent would oppose by stating that the first respondent/Mrs.S.Geetha, also belongs to Backward Class Community. In the event of providing reservation based on the Office Memorandum dated 20.08.1990, the first respondent would have been included under the quota. Since the Selection Committee considered the Office Memorandum, the first respondent was not selected. The writ court has considered these aspects and the Authorities have prepared the Selection List in an arbitrary manner. Therefore, the relief granted by the writ court is to be confirmed.

¶32

The learned Single Judge in para.10 of the Judgment has made an observation that the relief as such sought for by the first respondent in the writ petition cannot be granted to the first respondent/writ petitioner, since she has no proof to show that she got sufficient marks in the interview, for

¶33

Page No.3 of 6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.A.Nos.205 of 2013 & 1468 of 2000

¶36

selection and for appointment to the post of Assistant. Accordingly, the writ court held that the direction asked for by the first respondent in the writ petition cannot be granted. After forming an opinion that the first respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge in para.11 has quashed the entire recruitment notification and the consequential selection of 1950 candidates. Admittedly, none of these candidates were impleaded as parties nor their selection and appointment has been challenged in the writ petition. That being so, the writ court has erroneously exercised the powers of Judicial Review, which caused prejudice to the interest of the selected candidates in the process of selection. Thus, the order impugned is infirm. Consequently, the writ order dated 17.08.2000 made in W.P.No.17306 of 1993 is set aside and the Writ Appeals stand allowed . No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.] 18.07.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No veda

¶38

Page No.4 of 6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.A.Nos.205 of 2013 & 1468 of 2000

¶41

¶42

The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Represented by its Chairman, LIC Buildings, Anna Road, Madras - 2.

¶43

The Senior Divisional Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madras Divisional Office, 'Jeevan Prakash', Bridge Station Road, Sellur, P.B.No.16, Madurai - 625 002.

¶44

The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, New Delhi.

¶45

Page No.5 of 6

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.A.Nos.205 of 2013 & 1468 of 2000

¶48

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶49

veda

¶50

Judgment in W.A.Nos.205 of 2013 and 1468 of 2000

¶51

18.07.2024 (2/2)

¶52

Page No.6 of 6

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Insurance Corporation v. S.Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Insurance Corporation v. S.Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tmt C Indirani Vadugam Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

M. Narayanasamy Vs Madurai Institute of Social

M. Balaguru Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Pondicherry Institute Vs a.Chandirasegaran

The Special Officer Vs All Teachers Front

Life Insurance Corp of India Vs S.Geetha