IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 19803 of 2002 Between: G. Venkata Ratna Reddy. S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, Agent, L.I.C. of India, Ravulapalem, East Godavari District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Branch Manager L.I.C. of India, Ravulapalem, E.G.Dist. 2 The Senior Divisional Manager L.I.C. of India, Divisional Office, P.B.No.81, Danavaipet, Rajahmundry, E.G.Dist. 3 Sri L. Mahalakshmi, Development Officer, LIC of India Ravulapalem, E.G.Dist. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 & 2 declare the petitioner agency as ''direct'' agency and also to permit the petitioner to carry on the business directly after detaching his agency from 3rd respondent, Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.V.SURESH The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to declare him as “direct” agent and to permit him to carry on the business directly after detaching his agency from the third respondent. 2. Counter has been filed stating that the Branch Manager did not express satisfaction on the professional capacity of the petitioner and his ability to become a direct agent. As per the guidelines stipulated the consent of the Development Officer, who has recruited the agent, to make him direct agent also is a requirement and the third respondent has not consented for making the petitioner a Direct Agent. It is further stated that insofar as the Commission Structure is concerned there is no difference between the direct agent, recruited agent or allotted agent in the privileges, commission structures, fringe benefits or in status. Making an agent as direct is neither a promotion nor recognition of the agent’s seniority or capabilities. 3. No doubt, as per guideline No.5(C) of the Corporation, after five years of recruitment as an agent, if the Branch Manager is satisfied that the agent is no longer in need of the help and guidance of any Development Officer, such an agent may be treated as Direct Agent at the sole discretion of the Corporation. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner, as a matter of right, is not entitled to be treated as a Direct Agent. However, it is for the respondents to satisfy with regard to the capabilities, performance and ability of the petitioner to be treated as a Direct Agent. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. However, it is open for the petitioner to make a fresh representation and depending on his capability, it is open for the respondents to consider and dispose the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J March 24, 2008 DSK