Disposed

S. Vishwanadham, v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Telangana HC10 Feb 2025WA/159/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LIC appealed against orders directing absorption of selected sub-staff candidates who produced experience certificates of over five years' service as on the cut-off date. The Division Bench found the certificates validly issued and not cancelled before the writ decision, set aside the adverse review order, and modified the direction to one of consideration for absorption.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals disposed without costs; review order set aside; respondents directed to consider petitioners' working on basis of experience certificates and pass orders of absorption within eight weeks.

S. Vishwanadham, Vs Life Insurance Corporation of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING GHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NOs: 1426 & 1 432 OF 2O24 and 1 26 & 159 OF 2025

¶7

w.A.1426 0F 2024

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Lefters Patent Against the Order Dated 2611112024 in Review of I.A No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No 22BB of 2013 on thefite of the High Court

¶9

Between:

¶10

Life_ lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Rep by its Chairman, Jeevan Bhima Marg P. B. No. 19953, IVumbai 400021 , Maharastra State.

¶11

Life lnqqrance- Corporation of lndia, Rep by its Zonal Manager, South Central Zonal Office, Secretariat Road Saifabad Hyderabad.

¶12

The Senior Divisional Manager, Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia Secunderabad Divisional Office,-Jeevan Sagar, Behind NTR Stadium, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad 500080.

¶13

...APPELLANTS

¶14

AND

¶15

1 B. D. G. Prasad alias Ganesh, Sio B Lingaiah Aged 42 years Rl/o H No 20319/10 LIC Colony Dind Road Devarakohda, NalgondaDistrict 508248.

¶16

G. Mallesham, S/o. late G Balaiah Aged 36 years, R/o H No 1-1-4614, Fathenagar, Medak Diskict 5021 1.O.

¶17

P..Muthiah alias Muthyalu, S/o P Lachaiah Aged 47 years, Rl/o Appajipet village Post, Nalgonda Mandal District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

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 pleased to suspend the order passed in l.A. No. 1 ot 2023 in W.P. No. 2288 of 201 3 to the

¶21

:-^-l'

¶22

extent of^{Respondentsin Writ Appeal pending disposalof the WritAppealin the} interest of iustice

¶23

counserf ortheApperra"t.,,ss.:s{irffMHmrY#ri3lRiilitl"3^T"tt

¶24

Counsel^{for the ResPondents:SRIG.VIDYASAGAR, ST.COUNSEL} rep., Ms.K.UDAYA^SRI

¶25

W.A.No.1 4320F²⁰²⁴

¶26

WritAppealunderclause15oftheLettersPatentagainsttheorderdated 14lOGl2O22^{in W.P. 22u8 of 2013 on the file of the High Court'}

¶27

Between:

¶28

Life lnsurance^{C)orporationof lndia,} -RPp^{ny its Chairman' Jeevan BhimaMarg} ' F. e. M.ig953, lViumbai 40oo21. Maharastra State'

¶29

Life lnsurance^{Oorporation of lndia, Rep. by.itsZonal Manager' South Central} - Z;;;i bffi"e, Se'creitariat Road Saifabad Hyderabad'

¶30

The Senior^{E'ivisionalManager,Life- lnsuranceCorporation6f^ tnOia} " sdirnolooad Divisioriat cjnicJ,".le'"uan sagar, Behind NTR Sladium, Gandhi Nagar, HYderabad

¶31

.,.APPELLANTS

¶32

AND

¶33

1 B D 5r6lio'Lrcb"ii,nv G Prasad^{alias oino Ganesh, noio S/o Devara(onda, B Lingaiah A.g.ed Nalgonda District 508248'42 yearsRl/o H No 20-}

¶34

2 G Mallesham,^{Si/o late G Balaiah Aged 36 years,Rl/o H No 1-'1-46/A'} Fathenagar,^{I\4erdakDistrict 502110.}

¶35

3 P Muthiah alias^{Muthyalu, S/o P Lachaiah Age! a7 years' Rl/o Appajipet} viliage and Post,^{Nalionda Mandal and District'}

¶36

...RESPONDENTS

¶37

IA NO: 20F²⁰²⁴

¶38

Petition under^{section151 CPC prayingthat in the ,:ircumstancesstatedin} theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition'theHighCourtmaybepleasedpleased toSuspendtheorderpassedinW.P.No.22SBof'2013totheextentof Respondents^{in writ Appeal pending disposal of the writ Appeal in the interest of} justice.

¶39

counserrortheApperra,t"';s#.:#rffNl$fit4Y#ri3$,ff iiji.r,f.*ofJt="

¶40

Counsel^{for the Respondents: SRIG.VIDYASAGAR, Sr'COUNSEL,} rep., Ms.K.UDAYA^SRI

¶41

W.A.No.'t26^{0F 2025}

¶42

writ Appeal^{underclause 15 of the Letters Patent Againstthe orderDated} 2sitttiiaq^{in Review of l.A No.1oI 2023 in W.P.No 2288 of 2013on the file of the} High Court.

¶43

Between:

¶44

S.Vishwanadham,sio.Satyanarayana,Rl/o.H.No.4,1-29,PlotNo.60,DovtionBazar, Bolrum, Secunderabad-^{500 010.}

¶45

...APPELLANT

¶46

AND

¶47

Life lnsurance^{Corporation of lndia, Reg.b.y its Chairman, JeevanBhima} frrfuig,^p e^{Nlo tSS5OMumbai4O0 021, Maharastra State'}

¶48

Life lnsurance^{Corporation of lndia, R"P} P.y^{its Zonal Manager'SouthCentral} - Toiil bffice Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad'

¶49

3.TheSeniorDivisionalManager,LifelnsuranceComorationoflndia' sli"w,ii"*old, Divisid;;i'6'fi;blbeiian sigrr Behind NTR stadium Gandhi Nagar, HYderabad^{500 080.}

¶50

4.BDGPrasadaliasGanesh,S/o.B-Lingaiah,F/o'HNo'20319/10'LlC

¶51

C"l";y, Drna Ro;d, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District 508 248'

¶52

5.G.Mallesham,S/o.LateGBalaiah,Fl/oHNo1146tA'Fathenagar'Medak District 502^110.

¶53

P. Muthiah^{Muthyalu, S/oP Lachaiah,Rl/oAppajipet, Village and Post} Nalgonda Mandal^andDistrict'

¶54

...RESPONDENTS

¶55

(Respondent no's^{4 to 6 are not necessaryparties in the TwoWrit Apeals)}

¶56

IANO:3 OF²⁰²⁵

¶57

PetitionunderSectionl51cPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} susPEND^{the order passedin ReviewlA No.01/2023in wP No.228812013,dated'}

¶58

26lllt2o24anddiredtheRespondentstocontinuethePetitionerinserviceas Sub-Staff/Peon.

¶59

Senior counser'

¶60

counser for the^Apperra",, i"T.,";I1?],irt^1iT-iAo'

¶61

counserrortheRespono"*',,t"Tl,t[otl3,!Xiffirlt[,tf"%]i'o!o'"'"''

¶62

W A.No.159 OF²⁰²⁵

¶63

writ Appeal under^{clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainstthe order dated} 14tOOl2O22 in W P^{Nc, 2288of 2013 on the file of the High Court'}

¶64

Between:

¶65

FVo. H.No.41-29, Plot^{No.60Dovtion Bazar,} S. Vishwanadham,^{S/o. Satyanarayana'} Bolrum, Secunderabad-^{500 010}

¶66

...APPELLANTMIRIT^PETITIONER

¶67

AND

¶68

1 Life lnsurance Corporation^{of lndia,Rep by its Chairman, Jeevan Bhima} M;rq P B No l99dg^{Mumbai40o021,Maharastra State'}

¶69

2 Life lnsurance corporation^{of lndia, Rep by its Zonal Manager,Southcentral} Zonal Office Sr;creiariat^{RoadSaifabad' Hyderabad'}

¶70

J The Senior Dil'isional^{Manager,Lifelnsurance Corporationof lndia} S,ii,.r"O.j0".j Oirionat^{OfriceJeevan Sagar BehindNTRStadium Gandhi} Nagar Hyderatrad^{500 080}

¶71

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶72

4 BDGPrasadaliasGanesh,S/o.B.Lingaiatr.99'INo20319/10LlCColony OinO noaO De'rarakonda^{Nalgonda District508 248}

¶73

E G.Mallesham, S/o.^{late G BalaiahRio H No 1146/A Fathenqgar MedakDistrict} 502^'1 10

¶74

6 p. MuthiahMuthvalu. s/o P Lachaiah R/o Appajipet village and Post Nalgonda rurunJriino oiJi*i i1,e^{Respondent No's-4 to 6 are nestnecessary parties} in this Writ ApPeal).

¶75

...RESPONDENTS/wRtT PETITIONERS

¶76

lA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶77

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filerj in^{support of the petition,the Highcourt may'be pleasedto} SUSPEND the orders^{in WP No.228812013, dated'26'11'2024}

¶78

senior counser'

¶79

counser^{for the Apperra.,,} i"11,"Xi?Li"11?T-lAO' counserf ortheRespono",,"',:[:,tff^tff [fiifi"#,t$:f ,]^:J^"i15"" The Court made^{the following:COMMON JUDGMENT}

¶80

-.,

¶81

THE^{HON,BLETHE ACTING CHIEFJUSTICESUJOY PAUL} AND THE^{HON,BLESMT' JUSTICE RENUKA YARA}

¶82

Nos.^{1426 &'1432 of2o24and} t26 &1^{59 of 2025}

¶83

coMM^ON JUDGM^ENT @er^{the Hon'ble the Achng Chie'rJusticefn$oA Paul)l} Sri^{Pratap NarayanSanghi' learned Seniol Counsel} represents^{Sri K'Srinivasa Rao' learned counsel for the} appellants^{inW A'Nos' 1432 &' 1426 of2024 ar'6 for the} respondents^{irL W'A'Nos126 & 159 of 2025 and Sri G' Vidya} Sagar,^{learnecl Senior Counsel representsMs. K. \JdaYa Sri,} learned^{counsr:lforthe appellant in W'A'Nos'126 &' l-c9 o{"2025} and^{for the res;pondentsin W'AN os'1432& t426 of 2024'}

¶84

With^{the consent, finallY heard'} 2

¶85

Sri S'Vishwanadham^{and 3 others (hereinafterreferred} 3. to as^{turit pt:titioners') filed W'P'No'2288 of 2013 against Life} Insurance^{rccrporation of India and itsofficers (hereinafter} referred [o^as 'Corporation')^seeking a direction/Writ^of Mandamus^{declaring the action of the Corporationinnot} aPPointing^{the writ Petitionersas sub-staff tn Pursuanceof the} written^{exarrrination held on 26 '06 '2}ll ' interviewald medical} examination.^{Consequently' a direction is soughtfor to declare} that^{the rvrit-petitioners are entitledto be appointedas sub-sta-ff} I

¶86

¶87

coming under Class-IV category^{alongwith other candidates who} have appeared in the written^{examination held on 26.06.2011'}

¶88

Upon contest, learned Single Judge,^{vide order dated} 14.06.2022, allowed the . said^{writpetition holding that} employment certificate and^{experiencecertificates are given by} the Corporation in respect of^{the writ petitioners and therefore,} the Corporation cannot^{deny the opportunity of employment to} the writ petitioners when they^{have qualifiedin the written} examination and also interview^{and medicaltest. Further, the} learned Single Judge directed the^{Corporationto absorb tile writ} petitioners into the services as Sub-Staff^{subjectto employment} certificate given to each of^{the petitioners being not cancelled by} the Corporation.

¶89

The admitted position before us is that^{pursuantto a} judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s).953-968 of 2005, dated 18.01.2011, in LIC^{of India v. D.V.AnilKumar} etc., the employees were required to^{be absorbed subject to} fulfilling certain conditions.^{The conditionwhichis relevant for} adjudication of this matter is as^under:

¶90

"Candidates falling under^{Category (a) will have to} submit copies of proof of^{working with the} Corporation for more than^{five years as on} Chief 18.01.2011, duly signed^{by the} t Manager/ Sr/ Branch Manager^{In-Charge ofthe} \ Branch Ofhce, Manager (P&IR)/Manager^{(OS) of the}

¶91

¶92

respe,rtive^{DivisionalOfhce or the RegionalMalager} ipa'tR) / R.eio.ral^{Manager (OS) in respectof Zones} i,h.;.I' the"^{candidate is workingThe onusof} i"r"i,,fri"g^{authenticdocumentary proof for the} ""-. "t^{ih" tim" of submissionof the application} shali be^{on the candidate'"}

¶93

Learne,l^{Senior Counsel for the Corporation submitsthat} the writ^{petitionr:rs filed the rnrit petition by contendingthat they} have rendered^{rnore than hve years of serviceas on the cut-off} date i.e.^{18.01,2r011'However' one such writ petitioner:' namely} Sri S. Vishwanildham,^{in his pleadingshimseif mentjoned his} date of frrst^{engagement as Ol 'O4 '2OO7 'Counting from that} date, he had^{not completed five years of serviceas on thei'said} cut-off date

¶94

Learned.^{Senior Counsel for the Corporation further} submits^{that learned Single Judgeconsideredthe} experience/working^{certiflcates issuedby the Corporation'and} on the^{streng-h ofthose certificates'opined that the writ} petitioners,^{indeed, rendered five years of serviceas on the cut-} off date^{and directed to absorb the writ petitionersas sub-staff'}

¶95

Learne<l^{Senior Counsel for the Corporation further} submits that^{the Corporation did not admit that the writ} petitioners^{hac. rendered hve years of service as on the cut-off} date. Such^{ot,jection is categorically mentionedin the counter} hled before^{the rn,rit court. Apart from this, the u,rit petitioners'}

;w'

1 .1

ti li u

Learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation further submits that the respondents fiIed a r e v i -^qcr€w petition, namely Review I.A.No. 1 of 2023 r- "^ ---_ in the writ petition pointing out that Sri S. vishwanaon"_ *r' engaged in the year 2ooz and therefore, he has not complets ''!t' ed five years of "- se rvtce. r The review apprication was entertai ..n -^^.: iearned sing,e _i:,#,he 's, except for Sri S. ;,ffi#;;:.T

¶101

Learned Senior Counsel for the Corpora,tion submits that further the Corporation issued warning letters on 07.o2.2O74 b the concerned Senior Bralch Manager/Branch Manager, who had issued experience certificates to the writ petitioners, be cause of the irregularil:ies observed in the matter of recruitment Lastly, it is submitted that in view of the Mohd.Mynuddinr,Judgment of Supreme Court tn State Bank of India v the writ court, at best, could have issued

AtR 1987 sc 1889

I I I

directions to^c onsider the^{case of the writ petitioners for} absorption ald could not^{have issued positirzedirer:tionto} absorb them

¶107

1 1 . Per con t.ra, the learned Senior^{Counsel for the writ} petitioners submits that in the writ^{petition,the writ petitioners} have mentioned a chart and^{spelled out the dates of their initial} engagements. Because of^{a typographical error, the date of} initial engageme:nt of one of the writ^{petitioners,namely} Sri S. Vishwanailham, was^{mentioned as 01.04.2007in place of} 01.04.2001. The initia-l date^{of O1.04.2001 is matchingwith'nthe} date mentioned in the experience certificate^{(page No.76).} I.A.(SR)No. i 10804 of 2024 was filed before^the writ^courtseeking correction in the said date of initial^{engagement,trut said} interlocutory a.pplication was never decided.^Treatingthat erroneous date to be correct, the order of writ court^{lvas modifred} for writ petitioner No.1, Sri S. Vishwanadham. If^{innocuousI.A.} for amendment vuould have been allowed, there^{wouldhave been} no occasion to cc,nsider and allow the review^petil-ion.

¶108

So far the order of cancellation of candidatures on which relialce by learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation is^placed, learned Senior Oounsel for the writ petitioners submits that a careful reading of the said document (page No.82l) shows that by

¶109

¶110

¶111

no stretch of imagination, it can be treated to be al "order". This is an annexure to a document ald was not addressed to anybody nor communicated to the writ petitioners officially. Admittedly, the writ petitioners passed the written examination, medical examination and other formalities. The only thing which was coming in their way was whether they have rendered five years of service as on the cut-off date or not. The only requirement was to produce the experience certif,rcates which were duly produced by the writ petitioners. The subsequent cancellation of those certificates aJter decision of the writ petition is of no assbtance to the Corporation. Learned Senior Counsel a-lso criticized the so-called "warning letters" dated 07.02.2014 which nowhere shows that warning was given because of certifying the experience /years of service of the writ petitioners. It is^also pointed out that the Corporation was having the entire service records of the writ petitioners but they did not disclose the actual days of working in the counter filed before the writ court.

¶112

The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

¶113

We have bestowed our anxious consideration on the rival contentions and perused the record.

¶114

, ,

¶115

¶116

This is not disputed before us that the writ petitioners have passed their written examination, interview and medical examination.^'Ihe singular point raised by the learn ed Senior Counsel for the Corporation is in relation to five years working of the writ petitioners before the cut-off date. As per the policy, the relevant portiorr of which has already been reproducecl by us, it is clea-r that- the certificates issued by the Branch Manager/ Senio r Branch Manager are entertainable. Admittedly, the writ petitiorr was filed equipped with such certihcates issued by the Branch Manager/Senior Bralch Manager certifyinglthat the writ petitioners have completed more thal five years of senice as on 113.01.20 11. The writ court did not disbelieve the said certificatr:s;. We hnd substance in the argument of the learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioners that before frling the counter alfidavit and even before deciding the wril. petition, the Corporat-ion had not cancelled those certificates. Cancellation of those certificates, after decision of the writ petition, cannot cause any dent to the order of learned Single Judge.

¶117

We also find substance in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners that the document (page No.82) cannot be treated to be an^..order,, and therelbre non_ challenge of that document will not have aly aclverse itnpact on

¶118

i,l

¶119

¶120

the writ fetition.rs, more so when the writ petitioners categorically prayed for their appointment as sub-staff pursuant to their selection in the written examination, interview and medical examination.

¶121

One of the warning letters dated 07.02.2014 needs to be reproduced:

¶122

ERDlsczlR/l3-r4136 07.02.2014 Shri J Hari Lal, S.R.No.518O99, Branch Manager(MINS), Divisional Office, Warangal il

¶123

¶124

Dear Sir,

¶125

Re: Irresularities observed in Recruitm ent of Peons

¶126

During your tenure as Branch Manager, Devarakonda Branch Ofhce, Secunderabad Division, you had issued the employment certificate to Shri B.D.G.Prasad a/s Ganesh, without following the instructions contained in^letter Ref. : PER/ MPR I CL4 I 20 I I - 12l LO60dated^{1 5} .06.2O^11' for Recruitment ol Peons.

¶127

Though the aforesaid irregularitSr attributed to you is of serious nature, considering the^overall facts and circumstances of the case, it has^been decided to close the matter by^{'warning'you.}

¶128

Hence, you are hereby warned to be careful, so as to avoid recurrence of such^{irregularities in} future.

¶129

Yours faithfullY, Executive Director (Personnelf

¶130

A careful reading of the aforesaid^{warning letteralso} shows that it is nowhere mentioned that^{the years so certifled by} the certifying officer were found to^{be incorrect.Instead, it is}

¶131

, t

¶132

¶133

mentioned^{tkLa.t u'hile issuing the certificate,the in structions} contained in the^{letter dated 15'06'2011 w'ere no1. followed'} Thus,wefinrlnoflawintheorderoflearnerlSingleJudgein accepting the^{,:xperiencecertihcates filed by the u'rit petitioners} which were issued^{by the competent officers'}

¶134

The rr atter may^{be viewed from anot'her angle' If the} Corporation took^{a staldbefore the writ court thtrt the writ} petitioners have^{not worked for the requisite periodwhile} inserting^{pa::etgraph No.3 inthe counter, being custodianof} records, it^{n-as obligatory for a model Corporation to sp8f out} hou. many years^{of servicethe writ petitionershave put in'In} the absence of showing^{any such duration, which Corporation} ought to ha"'e^{shown, the writ court has rightly relied upon the} certificates c,r the^{strength of which the writ petition was filed.} At the cost c,f repetition,^{it is worth noting thzLt those certihcates} were not isstLed during^{the pendencyof the writ petitionand} were cancelk:d^{subsequentlyand such canceliation will not} improve the^{caseof the Corporation'}

¶135

20 . So f ar the case of one^{of the writ petitioners,namely} SriS.Vishu'anad.ham,isconcerned,itisseenthattr:rectifythe typographical error^{of date of initialengagement of O)"O4 '2OO7in} place of 01.04.2001, I.A.(SR)No.11O804^{of 2024 was filed in the}

: .a

writ proceedings, but the said interlocutory application could not be forrnally allowed. Flowever, if the pleadings of the said interlocutory application are tested on the anvil of the experience certificate, it is clear that the error mentioned in the date of engagement is a typographical error ard the said writ petitioner also worked for more thal five years as on the cut-off date. Thus, tn review jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in depriving Sri S. Vishwanadham from the fruits of the main order passed in W.P.No.2288 of 2O 13. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 o?ZOZS in W.P.No.2288 of 2013 is set aside.

¶140

So far the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.Mynuddin (supra) is concerned, the iaw is \,e11 settled that ordinarily in exercise of writ^{jurisdiction,} the Courts should issue directions to consider the case of the petitioners and not issue a mandamus to appoint or absorb them. Considering the aforesaid, we deem it proper to modi$z the order of the learne{ Single Judge by directing as under:

¶141

Since it is not in dispute that the writ petitioners have already passed their written examination, interview and medical examination, they shall not be again subjected to those examinations.

¶142

The experience/working of the writ petitioners as on the cut-off date shall be considered on the basis of experience certihcates filed with the writ petition and then the respondents shall consider the writ

¶143

I I

¶144

¶145

petitioners and pass appropriate orders of absorption as Fer rhe aloresaid ""ii.y *itr,,., ,ii",, a",l."om the datr, of receiving the copy of this order.

¶146

With the aforesaid directions, the writ appeals are disposed of. No costs.

¶147

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall a,lso stand
closed.
//TRUE COPY// DEdff [18fl'r'-'^H
To,
d.lln-,;;
' IB"r:it'#3 i,,il?jnb|..,aii, t"jffi i::il SIJ[l", Jeevan Bh ima Mars,
r nd i a, s o utn Jntra r
' Iff ",'B??jz5gij',,i,',i" S ff #j,,t",-!?:r,.t;"; oor
3. The Senior Divisional
:*u, _sgd?:tsfl:ilfffl:. .,55i,,i,.s:33?",S^",?if ,llffi Si,$sH
4. One CC to SRt KAMBHAMPATT SR|N|VASA RAO, Advocate. IOpUCj
5. One CC to Ms.h..UDAyl
\ SRI' Advocate [oPUc]
6. Two cD copies.
BSK
bi\ GJP