IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 WA.No. 1196 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16233/2011 Dated 19/07/2011 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------- 1. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, YOGAKSHEMA BHAVAN,MUMBAI-110 001. 2. SENIOR DIVISION MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------- 1. P.K.SHAJI,PONGATHRA HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD, ILLATHUPADI,PIN-682 502. 2. SYNAN E.D., ELLATHPADAM HOUSE, NEENDOOR, VADAKKEKARA P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR,PIN-683 502. 3. APPUKUTTAN M.K., MALOTTITHRA HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD P.O.,ERNAKULAM-682 502. 4. K.K.DIVAKARAN, KALAPPATTIL HOUSE, ELINJIPRA P.O., SITHARA NAGAR, CHALAKKUDY,PIN-680 221. 5. VIJAYAN P.K., PAPPALY HOUSE, VASUPURAM P.O., MATTATHUR KUNJU, KODAKARA VIA, TRICHUR DISTRICT,PIN-680 684. WA.No. 1196 of 2011 6. T.C.SIVAN, THERKOOTTAM HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O. VIA, ALUVA, PIN-683 580. 7. SURENDRAN M.K, MOOTTAMALAYILE HOUSE, MEMMURY, PAMPAKUDA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA-686 667. 8. K.K.GOPI, KUNDEPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.CHITTISSERY,THRISSUR-680 301. 9. PUSHKARAN C.K., CHELOOKARAN HOUSE, EDAKULAM P.O., IRINJALAKUDA VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 127. 10. SATHIAN M.R., CHERUKUNTHAPYYANAM, P.O.ASSRKAD, THRISSUR-680 751. 11. KRISHNANKUTTY N.K., NALADITHUNDIYIL, ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHRA P.O.,KOCHI-20. BY ADV.SRI.P. RAVINDRAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) SMT.APARNA RAJAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 16233 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1196 OF 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 16233 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The private respondents herein, when not called for attending the selection process conducted by the appellants herein in pursuance of Ext.P8 notification, approached the learned Single Judge, wherein an interim order also came to be passed in favour of the private respondent/petitioners directing the appellants herein to provisionally permit the respondent parties to sit for the written test, but the results need not to be declared without obtaining orders of the Court. 2. Subsequently, the respondents herein appeared for the written test and when the appellants started processing the procedure of oral interview, they again approached this Court contending that after the written test, as the selection process contemplates two exercises; one written test and the interview, W.A. No. 1196 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 16233 of 2011 -:2:- the respondent petitioners have to be allowed to appear for the interview based on their performance in the written test. 3. According to the appellants, Ext.P8 notification itself was the consequent action of appellants in pursuance of Ext.P7 and the order came to be passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.953 to 958 of 2005, wherein the question relates to regularisation of the service of various temporary employees placed throughout the various branches of appellant Corporation within India. 4. It is not in dispute that Ext.P4 is the judgment of this Court, wherein respondents approached this Court and a direction was given to consider their position also in the next arising recruitment. A condition was also imposed on the appellants not to delete the names of the respondents/petitioners on the ground of overage. When the judgment was not given effect to, they again approached this Court, filing another writ petition, W.P.(C) No.29141 of 2004, which also came to be disposed of as per Ext.P5 recording the submissions of the Corporation that in the next arising recruitment, the case of the petitioners would be considered. W.A. No. 1196 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 16233 of 2011 -:3:- 5. Subsequent to these two judgments, viz Exts.P4 and P5, the recruitment in question came up and according to the appellants, it is in pursuance of a direction given in Ext.P7 by the Apex Court. So far as the factual situation is concerned, joining the service by the respondent petitioners is much earlier to the candidates who are to be considered in the present recruitment by the appellant Corporation. According to the appellants, this notification Ext.P8, was necessary in view of the directions of the Apex Court. 6. As we note from the contentions of the parties and also the contents of the relevant documents it is clear that, there is no bar that these respondents/petitioners are not entitled to appear for the selection process in question. The directions given at Ext.P7 are not at all contra to the directions given in Exts.P4 and P5. Along with the candidates involved in Ext.P7, if the candidates, refer to Exts.P4 and P5 are considered, the appellant Corporation would only be following the directions of the Court and ultimately selection of the candidates would be based on the performance of the candidates both in written test as well as the interview, in accordance with the procedure contemplated by the W.A. No. 1196 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 16233 of 2011 -:4:- Corporation. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, was fair in passing the following order which reads as under: “xx xx xx xx In case the respondents have fixed cut of mark for earning eligibility to appear for the interview as part of the selection process pursuant to Ext.P8 notification, the respondents shall look into the marks scored by each of the petitioners in the written test and in the event, any of them scored required mark, the respondents shall conduct interview for him/them provisionally. In other words, if there is no cut of mark fixed by the respondents, then all the petitioners shall be interviewed provisionally. It shall be conducted expeditiously. It is made clear that the result as regards the petitioners shall not be published without obtaining further orders from this Court. It is also made clear that the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioners for getting appointment on the strength of Exts.P4 and P5 based on their participation in this selection process would be decided in the Writ Petition itself. It will be open to the parties to raise their respective contentions, at the time of hearing.” In view of the above discussion, we see no merit in the case of the appellant Corporation. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. W.A. No. 1196 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 16233 of 2011 -:5:- W.P.(C) No. 16233 OF 2011 In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal for the reasons stated above, W.P.(C) No. 16233 of 2011 is allowed. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb