Dismissed

P. Srinivas and 13 Ors. v. Zonal Manager, Lic, Hyd. and 4 Ors.

Telangana HC17 Oct 2023WP/18057/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by retired LIC peons seeking appointment as Sub Staff. Relying on prior judgments that rejected similar pleas, the court noted that any available relief was already covered in earlier orders without revealing specific grant or denial details in this order.

What did the court decide?

Application for directions to include petitioners in selection process or conduct re-examination dismissed; no order as to costs.

P. Srinivas and 13 Ors. Vs Zonal Manager… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 18057 OF 2011

¶8

Between:

¶9

P. Srinivas, S/o. Ramulu, aged about 25 years, Peon, LIC of lndia, Peddapally Branch, Karimnagar District.

¶10

S. Vasu, S/o. Ramulu, aged about 26 years, Peon, LIC of lndia, Peddapally Branch, Karimnagar District.

¶11

R. Ramesh, S/o. Kanakaiah, aged about 26^years, Peon, LIC of^lndia, Peddapally Branch, Karimnagar District.

¶12

G. lVlondaiah, S/o. Pochaiah, aged about 32^years, Peon, LIC of^lndia, Peddapally Branch, Karimnagar District.

¶13

B. Sadaiah, S/o. Kanaiah, aged about 29^{years, Peon, LIC} of^lndia, Peddapally Branch, Karimnagar District.

¶14

K. Bhaskar, S/o. Komraiah, aged about 30^years, Peon, LIC of^lndia, Karimnagar Branch No.1, Karimnagar District.

¶15

S. Madhusudan, S/o. Veeramallu, aged about 46 years, Peon, LIC of^lndia, Divisional Office, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶16

A. Satyanarayana, S/o. Srihari, aged about 38^years, Peon,^LIC of^lndia, Karimnagar Branch No.'1 , Karimnagar District.

¶17

P. Srinivas, S/o. Lasumaiah, aged about 28^{years, Peon,LIC} of^lndia, Karimnagar Branch No.'l , Karimnagar District.

¶18

N. Sampath, S/o. Veeramallu, aged about 26^years, Peon, LIC of^lndia, Karimnagar Branch No.'1 , Karimnagar District.

¶19

11.ltrl. Ramesh, S/o. Komuraiah, aged about 26^{years,Peon, LIC} of^lndia, Karimnagar Branch No.1 , Karimnagar District.

¶20

1. P. Sanjeev, S/o. Rajalingu, aged about 26^{years, Peon, LIC} of^lndia, Karimnagar Branch No.1, Karimnagar District.

¶21

13.D. Kishan, S/o. Damodar Reddy, aged about 37^years, Peon,^{LIC of lndia,} Divisional Office, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶22

14.P. Praveen, S/o. Prabhakar Rao, aged about 44^{years, Peon, LIC of lndia,} Peddapally Branch, Karimnagar Division, Karimnagar^District. (all the petitioners are working as Sub Staff in their respective offrces) _ __ _ ...PETITIONERS

¶23

AND

¶24

The Zonal Manager, Life lnsurance Corporation of^{lndia, HyderabadZone,} Jeevan Bhagya Buildings, Opp. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶25

The Divisional Officer, Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, At Jeevan^Prakash Buildings, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶26

The Branch Manager, Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Jeevan^Jyothi Buildings, Peddapally Karimnagar District.

¶27

The Branch Manager, Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Karimnagar^Branch No.1, Jeevanbaghya Buildings, Karimnagar, Karimnagar^District.

¶28

The Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, rep. by its, Chairman,^{CentralOffice} at Yogakshma Buildings, Mumbai.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filerr therewith, the High court may be pleased to rssue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamr_rs declare that the petitioners are entifled for appointment to the post of sub staff (Peon) as per their applications and as per the orders of the Hon,ble supreme court in civil Appear No. 953-968/2005 dated 1B.or.2011 as per their service of more than five years in the respondents corporation arong with others with a consequentiar benefits rf necessary by conducting re-examination by hording the action of the respondents in not issurng the HaI Tickets and alrowing for written test though the petitioners fulfilled more than five years of service in their respective offices is as illegal, arbilrary, drscriminatory and unjust.

¶31

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2 011(WPMP NO:21727 OF 2011)

¶32

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents not to make appointments to the post of Sub staff (peon) ti the petitioners are incruded in the serection process as per the notification and their applications.

¶33

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 23 380 0F 2011)

¶34

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suppo( of the petition, the High court may be preased to relain and continue the petitioners in their present status i.e. peon/Sub staff and in their respective places pendrng disposal of the above Writ petition.

¶35

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP . NO: 2843 I OF 2013)

¶36

Petition under Section i 5i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition. the High court may be preased to direct the respondent to continue the petitioners herein as sub-staff in their respective posts, as was done in other similarly placed persons, pending disposal of the above W.P.

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.RAMGOPAL RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: SRt BATHULA RAJ KIRAN, SC FOR LIC

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

¶40

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.18057 OF 2011

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

The present writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶43

"....to issuc n urit order or direction more in the nnture of urit of nnndanttrs tleclare tlmt tlrc petitioners are entitled for appointment to tlrc post of Sub Stnff^(Peon) as per their applications and^as per the orders of tfu Honble Supreme Court in Cioil Appeal No 9539682005, tlntad 78-01-2077 as per their seroice of more^than fue ycnrs in tha raspontlurts corporation along ruitlt otlrcrs uith all conscquentinl bcnefts if necessnry by conducting reexamination^by holding thc action of the respondents in not issuing the Hall Tickcts antl allottting for written test though the petitioners fulflled^{ntore than} foe^{yearsof seruicein theirrespectioeoffces is} as illegal arhitrnry discriminatory and unjust..^. ."

¶44

2 Today when the matter is taken up for consideration,^learned counsel for petitioners as well as resPondents^{submits that the subject} matter of this writ petition is squarelv covered by^{the order dated} 72.07.2017 in W.P.No.19445 of 2011 and dated^{1'4.07.2077 in} W.P.No.19696 of 2017 and also in^{viewof the Civil AppealNos.953-968} of 2005, dated 18.01.2011 of the Hon'ble^{Supreme Courtin Life Insurance} Corporation of India and Anr.Etc.V.^{D.V.AnilKumarEtc.}

¶45

¶46

wP 18057 201 I NBK. J

¶47

In vieu. of the alrove subnrission, this writ pctition is dismissec'l

¶48

in terms thereof. Registrl,is c-lirectecl to append a copy of the order

¶49

dated 12.07.2011 in W.I']. No.19.145 of 2011 and dated 14.07.2011 in

¶50

W.P.No.19696 of 2071. No orcler as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel, miscr-llaneous pctitions, if any, shall stand closed

¶52

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISIENT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// QD SECTION OFFICER

¶53

To 1 One CC to SRI TM.RAMGOPAL RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 2 One CC to SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN, SC FOR LIC [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the order dated 12.07.2O1 1 in WP.No.19445 of 2011 and dated 14.07.2011 in WP.No.19696 of²⁰¹ 1)

PSK GJP .

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 Tt1Ot2O23

ORDER

WP.No.18057 ot 2O11

c,
LL
)

.DISIT,IISSING^{THE WRIT} PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶61

¶62

¶63

KCII,,] w IJ.No 19696 20 I l

¶64

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.8HANU

¶65

WRIT PETITION NO.19696 OF 2OI r

¶66

ORDER:

¶67

'lhis Writ petition is filed seeking to declare that the pctitioners arc entitled to participate in the process of selection of Peons in terms of the undertaking given by the respondent Corporation in Civil Appeal Nos.953 an.l 968 of 2OOS betore the Honourable Supreme Court of India, and consequently, direct the respondents to ltold another one time limited examination for the petitioners rvho have rvorked in the Corporation more than five years,rnd $,ho possess mrDirnurn eligrble qualification at the time of entry in the Corporation.

¶68

2. Iieard

¶69

It is not irr dispute befor.e this Court that in pursuance of affidavit given by Life Insurance Corporation of India before the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.953 and 96g of 20O5, wherein it formulated a scherne to conduct one time limited examination to the persons rvho are put up sewice of five years as on 18.01.2011, the Corporation conducted written test on 26.06.201| .

¶70

The grievance of the petitioners herein is that they were not allowed to participate in the la.ritten examination illegally and arbitmrity and therefore, they want a direction be given by this Court to the respondents to conduct another one-time limited examination to those who rvorked in the Corporation for more than hve years and possess minimum eligible qualilication at the time of entry into the respondents Corporation. Such a direction cannot

¶71

(c l1

¶72

be gr|cn in^YicN o[ thc fact^{that onctimc lllllitocl cxarnitlatio]l\as} alrc:rcly c<ltrrlrtcted lIl^{pursuilllccoI thedircctlons o[tl]e} l{ollourabk: Supremc Cotlrt o[ Irrdia.^{If thc} l)elitior]ers^{rc(luilc arrl} clanficatiot), lhey can hle^{nc<ressaryat)plication bcforr:the} I{onourzrrbk: Supreme Court of^{Irtdia.Tltercfore, lhcrc are Ilo} grouncls to adrnit the Writ Petition in the^{al)scnce o[ ilfringcrncrrl} or liolalion of any statutory or^{fllndrrmentalrig[']t-}

¶73

Accordingly, the Writ Petiliolr is drsnlisscd.^{Thcreshall lrc} no order as to costs.

¶74

JUSTICE K.C.BHA]'IU

¶75

JULY 14,2011

¶76

THE HON'8LE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAB AHI\i1AD KAKRU AND

¶77

THE HON'BLE SHRIJUSTICE VILAS V, AFZULPURKAR

¶78

WRIT PETITION NO. 19445 0F 201¹

¶79

ORDER:^(perthe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad^Kakru)

¶80

Relying on the^judgment of the Supreme Court in L.lC. ol lndia^v. D.V. Anil Kumar (in Civil Appeal Nos.953 968 of 2005, dated^18-1- 2011)our indulgence is sought lo command the respondents to^hold another one lime limited examination. To appreciate the^contention, appropriate it is to reproduce^paragraph 6 of the lerms and^{conditions of} the scheme approved by the Supreme Coudⁱⁿ iudgment^supra.

¶81

"Such ol those temporary employees who do not apply and not successful shall cease to be in the employment^{lt is} clarified that those lemporary^persons who are^{not governed} under these submrssions, shall also cease Io be^rn the employment.'

¶82

Perusal of the reproduction makes it^very clear thal^temporary employees who could not apply or^failed to^{qualilytheexamirlation shall} cease to be in the employment. Admitted case of^{thepetitioners is that} their applications were not considered because of^lack of^requisite experience. ln thal view of the matter,^{we find nothingwrongwithlhe} denial of consideration.^lvlore so, the^relief sought^{by the petitioners is} quite contrary to the mandate of the^judgment supra, obviously^grant of such relief by this Court is out of^{questton.Dismissed.}

¶83

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J CJ 12-7^-2011

¶84

NISAR AHMAD KAKRU.

¶85

B. Narsinga Rao

P. Srinivas and 13 Ors. v. Zonal Manager, Lic, Hyd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Srinivas and 13 Ors. v. Zonal Manager, Lic, Hyd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Ap State Road Transport Corporation Vs Madishetti Rajamouli and 2 Ors.

M/S. Andhra Printers Ltd. and 2OTS Vs the Labour Court, Hyd and Ano

P.Venkateswara Rao, Hyd. Vs Regional Jt. Commr. Hyd and Another

Govada Padma Rao and 2 Oths Vs State of Ap., Rep.Byits Special Cheif Secretary and 3 Oths

Smt.Chadalavada Venkata Ramani, Vs The State Bank of Andhra Pradesh

Dharavath Sunithadevi, Warangal Dist. Vs the Chairman / M/D., Apnpdcl, Warangal Dist. and 3 Othrs