IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30695 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.JAYACHANDRA PRASAD, MAHALAKSHMI MANDIRAM, KUNNAMTHANAM P.O, THIRUVALLA - 689 581. BY ADVS. SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR KUM.D.MINI RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ZONAL MANAGER, SOUTH ZONE, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CHENNAI - 600 001. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, C.M.S.COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI. EASWARAN, SC FOR LIC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 30695 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2000 TERMINATING THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 15.03.2011 IN W.A 1616/2010. EXT.P3 - COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.( C ) 20745/08. EXT.P4 - COPY OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 25.06.2008 INVITING APPLICATION FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANTS IN LIC. EXT.P5 - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.06.2008. EXT.P6 - COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P (C ) 27650/08. EXT.P7 - COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 21.01.2010 IN W.A 398/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.30695 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the office of the second respondent in a temporary vacancy that had arisen pending recruitment of a regular hand. The petitioner's appointment was through the Employment Exchange. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed for the period from 4.6.1999 to 28.4.2000 and worked as an Assistant in the LIC Circle, Kottayam. Thereafter, he was appointed for the period from 4.6.1999 to 28.4.2000 for a period of 224 days. According to the petitioner, he was in continuous service for more than 324 days. Therefore, he claimed regular appointment. However, he was terminated from service on 28.4.2000 as per Ext.P1. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed to a temporary vacancy. In an identical case, according to him, reinstatement in service as well as regularisation was ordered by this Court. Since WPC No.30695 of 2011 2 there are number of vacancies available at various places, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to be regularised and posted to one of the vacancies that are available. 2. While so, as per Ext.P4 advertisement, the LIC has called for applications for appointment to the post of Assistants. The petitioner claims a right of preferential appointment to one of the vacancies in view of the dictum contained in the decision of the Apex court reported in U.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD V POORANCHANDRA PANDEY AND OTHERS [(2007) 11 SCC 92)]. Though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 representation requesting for regularisation, the same was rejected. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate orders and directions for his regularisation. 3. The counsel for the respondents opposes the grant of any relief in this writ petition. According to the counsel, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPC No.20745 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the LIC to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and to take a decision thereon in the course of the WPC No.30695 of 2011 3 recruitment that was sought to be effected as per the advertisement that was challenged. The petitioner was also permitted to submit an additional representation with necessary materials to support his contentions. However, after considering his representation, the petitioner's claim was rejected. Thereupon, the petitioner challenged the rejection of his representation in WPC No.27650 of 2008. This Court found that his request was rejected on the ground that he had not applied for the post of Assistant in response to the employment notice dated 25.6.2008. After considering the matter, this Court has held in paragraph-7 of the said judgment as follows: “If any relaxation in the matter of submission of the application is granted, that will pave way for complaint from other candidates who had not responded to the said application. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated in a different manner, as the standards that are adopted by the respondents could not be relaxed for a particular candidate, even though, he was having different spells of temporary appointment with the respondents. In that view of the matter, Ext.P7 cannot be said to be illegal and the same has been passed in accordance with the scheme that was framed by them and nothing could be said as improper. It cannot be termed that the decision taken by them in Ext.P7 is vitiated WPC No.30695 of 2011 4 by any error. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed”. 4. It is clear from the above observation that the petitioner's claim was considered by this Court and rejected. The petitioner thereafter challenged Ext.P6 judgment in Writ Appeal No.398 of 2009. Ext.P7 is the judgment in the said writ appeal confirming Ext.P6. Therefore, the issue has become concluded by Ext.P7 judgment. 5. The present complaint of the petitioner is that since he had worked continuously for a period of more than 240 days, the petitioner is entitled to re-employment in view of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner has a further contention that in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court in U.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD V POORANCHANDRA PANDEY AND OTHERS [(2007) 11 SCC 92)], the petitioner is also entitled to claim regularisation invoking Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the fact remains that the petitioner's claim has been considered by this Court in the judgments, Exts.P6 and P7 and rejected. The said judgments have WPC No.30695 of 2011 5 become final and conclusive. Therefore, the petitioner is no longer entitled to re-agitate the same claim, even if it is on a different ground. The petitioner ought to have raised the present ground also in the earlier writ petition. Having omitted to do so, there are no grounds for permitting the said contentions to be agitated again in this writ petition. For the above reasons, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE true copy P.S.TO JUDGE css/