IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 398 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27650/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ C.JAYACHANDRA PRASAD, MAHALAKSHMI MANDIRAM, KUNNAMTHANAM P.O., THIRUVALLA - 689 581. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE ZONAL MANAGER, SOUTH ZONE, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CHENNAI. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, C.M.S.COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.01.2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.398 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 21st January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He had worked for some time, as an Assistant on temporary basis, under the respondents, between 1999 and 2004. The Life Insurance Corporation of India invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant, as per Ext.P4, in 2008. As per the said notification, the appellant was over-aged, to apply for the said post. After the last date for submission of the applications, he filed Ext.P5 representation before the first respondent, claiming regular appointment as Assistant, in view of his engagement on temporary basis earlier. As per the direction of this Court in W.P. (C) No.20745/08, the said representation was considered and rejected by Ext.P7. So, the present writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, pointed out that WA NO.398/09 2 the persons who have worked on temporary basis, can also apply for the post of Assistant, along with others, with a separate application for relaxing the age limit, taking into account the past service rendered by them, as temporary hands. If the application for relaxing the age limit is allowed, they have to contest along with other applicants, and come out successfully, it is submitted. 3. In this case, we notice that the appellant did not resort to such a course, but submitted a representation after the last date of submission of the applications. A temporary hand, has no legal right to claim appointment, directly as an Assistant. That was the prayer made in Ext.P5. Therefore, the same was rightly rejected, by Ext.P7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.398 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 21st January, 2010.