and post Bangarupalem Mandal v. other

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in W.P.No.1304 oI 2018 Dt.'l9 -01-2018 in the interest of justice lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispose of the writ petition as it is covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27.O4.2O22 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RA,KUMAR (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN (SC FOR LIC ) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA UTRIT PETITIO N No.1 3O4 of 2018 ORDER: This n'r'it petition is filed seeking the followin q relief: ott issue an appropriate ttLit or order or direct'ott,more oartittlrtrlt1 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus lccLai,ng ihe'R"spondents'in takiis step: ro re ttoue ttLe i;;",;;;;;;,,," "f 'i"tii""")t lts Sub-Sraff tttithout regtlarizing ttYtr }e:t:?.ba 'r;;;;;;,rs-;h" exa'iination in pursuance of orde's dated \i'i.oi.io'i, iin auil Appeat no gij to s68 oI 2oos p-tssed bs ii"" it"""r".at. sup'e " court eueft though the F':tttione's 'ii""'^"t^it"1.i than 2o gears of seruice, as sub ';taff anrl ',';i";i;'";;;;t", some othcr iandidites in their ptoc treatittq tl? sonle as v(rcant os arbitrary' illegal' -un'ust *':: ,tr"oiiurrr-not, viotatiue oJ princioles of ,:"d ;;";;;;,," Arlictes 1t, t6 and2t'of thi Constllurior :! !:n'' direction lo the Respot tletis-.l.o- l""a" l.i'rrrr""rrr. Petitiiners as sub'stafJ bg dulv reouLon-ut4 t,n'tr I""-J".r: n., p.r, he orders dated 1d-o1'2011 in ciul y'uPea[ No' ;(;oi pa""ed ba the Honour.abte supn t.ne Cortrl ;;;i;';';;';l -"ontr.q'"ntiqi and c tendant benef ts in the "ii"i ,iirir"Lrl ittere,sl ol itstice. ' "o'it"rtr,""ti"t 1atu.r1l ,t" "rr'.,," ^rie

2. No representation on behalf of the petitionels'' 3. Today u'hen the matter is taken up fo' consideration' learned counsel for respondents submits that thc subject matter of this Writ Petition is squarely covered b" the order in W.P.No.19445 of 2O 1 I dated l2'O7 '2OLl and in W'P'No' 19696 of 2O11 datecl 14-07.2011 and also in view of the Civil Appeal Nos.953-968 ol 2005, dated 18'01'2O11 of the l{on'ble Sr.rpreme Life Insurance CorPorqtion o:f India Vs' D'V'Anil Court tn Kumo'r.t 'zooa (a) lro zzl f I 2

3. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court relied on the Judgment dismissed W.P.No.19445 of 2011 by the following order: "Relging on the jud.gment of the Supreme Court in L.I.C. of India u. D.V. Anil Kumar (in Ciuil Appeat Nos.953-968 of 2005, dated 18-1 2011) our indulgence is sought to command tLE respondents to hold atother one time limited examination. To appreciate the contention, appropriate tt is to reproduce paragraph 6 oJ tlrc terms and conditions of the sclrcme approued bg the Supreme Court in ludgment suprq." "Such of those temporary ernplogees uho do not apptg and. not successful shall cease to be in th.e emptoAment. It is clarifred that those temporary persons utho are not gouerned under tlrcse submissions, shqll also ceose to be tn the emptogment." "Pentsal of the reproduction mctkes it uery clear that temporary emplogees wtto could not applg or failed to (Nahfu the examination slnll cea.se to be in tlrc emplogmenL Admitted cqse of the petitioners is that their opplication-s tuere not considered because of lork of requisite expeience. In that uiew of th.e matter, we fi.nd nothing urong uith the denial of consideration. More so, th.e rekef sought bg the petitioners is quite contrary to the mandate of the judgment supra, obuiouslg grant of such relief bg this Court is out of question Dismissed. "

4. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition also stands dismissed. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order in W.P.No.19445 of 2011 dated 12.07.2011. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEcTh$-FFIcER To, 1- One 2. One 3. Two CC CC CD to SRl. P. RAJKUMAR, Advocate [OpUCl to sRt. BATHULA RAJ K|RAN, (SC FOR [rC I JOeUCI copies (fr (Along with a copy of the order in W.P.No.19445 of 2011 , dated 12.O7.2011) BM : *I\ HIGH COURT DATED:1010612025 ORDER WP.No.1304 of 2018 '- \(_' ,. \:\ r '{ rs "\. 1ri sEP 2025 -!' )/ \''^.r: ' -, i.' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS rA- 5 q, 2i-- THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRINISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR wR tT PETITION NO.1 9445 0F 201 1 RDER (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in L./.C. of lndia v. D.V. Anil Kumar (in Civil Appeal Nos.953-968 of 2005, dated 1 8-1- 2011) our indulgence is sought to command the respondents to hold another one time limited examination. To appreciate the contention, appropriate it is to reproduce paragraph 6 of lhe terms and conditions of the scheme approved by the Supreme Court in iudgment supra. "Such of those temporary employees who do not apply and not successful shall cease to be in the employment. lt is clarified that those temporary persons who are not governed under these submissions, shall also cease to be in the employment-" Perusal of the Ieproduclion makes it very clear that temporary employees who could not apply or lailed to qualify the examination shall cease to be in the employment. Admitted case of the petitioners is that therr applications were not considered because of lack of requisite experience. ln that view of the matter, we find nothing wrong with the denial of consideralion. More so, the relief sought by the petitioners is quite contrary to the mandate of the judgment supra, obviously grant ol such reliet by this Court is out of question. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 12-7.2011 B. Narsnga Rao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PBADESI.. AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRINISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HC'N,BLE SHRIJUSTICE VILAS V, AFZULPURKAR WRIT PE TtTtoN NO.19445 0F 201 1 DATED:12.7.201 1 Between: lnsurance Employees Union, rep. by its General Secrelary, It4r. U. Venkata Ramana, Son of Pandu f1anga Bao, C/o. Life lnsura nce Corporation o[ lndia Divisional Otfice, Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam,KrishnaDistrict ... Petitioner And Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia Central Office, Bepresenled by its Chairman At 'Yogakshema' Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai and others . .. Respondents