IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 27650 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 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): -------------------------- 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 PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.27650/2008-N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the non consideration of his application to the post of Assistant which was notified to be filled up as per Ext.P4. His request was rejected as per Ext.P7 on the ground that even though he was eligible to participate in the recruitment process, he did not apply for the post of Assistant, in response to the Employment Notice dated 28/06/2008. 2. The claim raised by the petitioner for appointment is on the following basis:- He was appointed earlier as an Assistant in the second respondent's office in a temporary vacancy in the scale of pay of Rs.1950- 5500 as per the advise of the the Employment Exchange. He was appointed for a period from 04/06/1999 to 03/07/1999. It was extended from 04/07/1999 to 02/08/1999 as per order dated 01/07/1999, and he was discharged from service on 02/08/1999. Again it was extended for a further period of 30 days from 02/09/1999 to 01/10/1999 as per order dated 24/09/1999. He obtained another extension from 01/10/1999 to 31/10/1999 and later on, from 01/11/1999 to 30/11/1999 and thereafter from 01/12/1999 to 07/12/1999 and finally till 29/04/2000. According to the petitioner, he W.P.(C) No.27650/2008 -:2:- was entitled for regularisation. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No.25951/2000 seeking for a direction to allow him to continue in employment and to afford a regular appointment to him. This was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment. It was made clear that if the respondent intend to fill up the vacancy which may arise due to the termination of service of the petitioner once again by resorting to temporary appointment, he should be considered for such post on a priority basis. It was also made clear that what is to be conferred is only a temporary appointment and such appointment will not enure to the petitioner any further advantage in the matter of selection or service. Accordingly, the petitioner was afforded an appointment for 30 days as per order dated 30/10/2000. The same continued upto 85 days and he was terminated from service with effect from 27/01/2001. Again on different spells he continued and finally the last appointment was terminated on 18/12/2004. 3. Presently, the claim is based on Ext.P4 notification. By it the respondents invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistants. The petitioner has got a case that a person like the petitioner was eligible for relaxation of age and this fact could not be ascertained by him as the said details were not evident from Ext.P4. On coming to know of the same, he filed Ext.P5 representation. Later on, finding that he has not been considered he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.20745/2008, W.P.(C) No.27650/2008 -:3:- which was disposed of with a direction to the Zonal Manager, the first respondent to consider Ext.P13 representation produced therein. Finally, Ext.P7 reply was given to him after considering the entire aspects. 4. The claim raised by the petitioner is one based on earlier judgment (Ext.P3), in compliance of which he obtained temporary appointment, as also for the reason that in Ext.P4 notification the details regarding age was not clearly mentioned and, therefore, Ext.P5 ought to have been considered. 5. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit traversing the contentions raised by the petitioner. The details of the petitioner's appointment have been stated in paragraph (5) of the counter affidavit. It is explained that the appointment sought for is on a regular basis and, merely, because the petitioner had worked on temporary basis earlier, it cannot confer him any right or preference for regular selection and the petitioner has to undergo regular selection process to gain any appointment. It is also pointed out that as the petitioner had not submitted any application, the respondents were not under a duty to consider his claim for regular appointment. Therefore, the respondents have taken the stand that even though, going by the earlier judgments, there is a direction to consider his representation, nothing could be done since he has not submitted a proper application. W.P.(C) No.27650/2008 -:4:- 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Ext.P4 details regarding the relaxation of age were not specifically mentioned and that prevented the petitioner from submitting the application in the proper form. 7. Ext.P4 is only an invitation. The specifications as to how and in what manner a person can obtain an application and submit it are clearly stated in Ext.P4. Therefore, it is the primary duty of the candidate to find out the details of the conditions contained in the application. Admittedly, the petitioner had not submitted any application in the form required. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the view taken by the respondents in Ext.P7 is incorrect. 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 W.P.(C) No.27650/2008 -:5:- Ext.P7 is vitiated by any error. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had a right to be appointed if a vacancy which may arise in future is filled up on temporary basis. It is clear from Ext.P3 that the said right of the petitioner for preference in the matter of temporary appointment is protected. Therefore, no particular directions need be issued except to say that if respondents initiate any procedure for filling-up any vacancies on temporary basis, the claim of the petitioner along with similarly placed persons be considered by them. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms