1. Life_ lnsurance Corporation of lndia v. B. D. G. Prasad alias Ganesh

Counsel for the ResPondents: SRI G.VIDYA SAGAR, ST.COUNSEL rep., Ms.K.UDAYA SRI W.A.No.1 4320F 2024 WritAppealunderclause15oftheLettersPatentagainsttheorderdated 14lOGl2O22 in W.P. 22u8 of 2013 on the file of the High Court' Between: 1. Life lnsurance C)orporation of lndia, -RPp ' F. e. M.ig953, lViumbai 40oo21. Maharastra State' 2. Life lnsurance Oorporation of lndia, Rep. by.its Zonal Manager' South Central - Z;;;i bffi"e, Se'creitariat Road Saifabad Hyderabad' 3. The Senior E'ivisional Manager, Life- lnsurance Corporation 6f^ tnOia " sdirnolooad Divisioriat cjnicJ,".le'"uan sagar, Behind NTR Sladium, Gandhi ny its Chairman' Jeevan Bhima Marg Nagar, HYderabad .,.APPELLANTS AND 1 2 3 B D G Prasad alias Ganesh, S/o B Lingaiah A.g.ed 42 years Rl/o H No 20- 5r6lio'Lrcb"ii,nv oino noio Devara(onda, Nalgonda District 508248' G Mallesham, Si/o late G Balaiah Aged 36 years, Rl/o H No 1-'1-46/A' Fathenagar, I\4erdak District 5021 10. P Muthiah alias Muthyalu, S/o P Lachaiah Age! a7 years' Rl/o Appajipet viliage and Post, Nalionda Mandal and District' ...RESPONDENTS IA NO: 20F 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the ,:ircumstances stated in theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition'theHighCourtmaybepleasedpleased toSuspendtheorderpassedinW.P.No.22SBof'2013totheextentof Respondents in writ Appeal pending disposal of the writ Appeal in the interest of justice. counserrortheApperra,t"';s#.:#rffNl$fit4Y#ri3$,ff iiji.r,f.*ofJt=" Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G.VIDYA SAGAR, Sr'COUNSEL, rep., Ms.K.UDAYA SRI W.A.No.'t26 0F 2025 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Against the order Dated 2sitttiiaq in Review of l.A No.1 oI 2023 in W.P.No 2288 of 2013 on the file of the High Court. Between: S.Vishwanadham,sio.Satyanarayana,Rl/o.H.No.4,1-29,PlotNo.60,DovtionBazar, Bolrum, Secunderabad- 500 010. ...APPELLANT AND

1. Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Reg. b.y its Chairman, Jeevan Bhima frrfuig, p e Nlo tSS5O Mumbai 4O0 021, Maharastra State'

2. Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, R"P P.y its Zonal Manager' South Central - Toiil bffice Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad' ' sli"w,ii"*old, Divisid;;i'6'fi;blbeiian sigrr Behind NTR stadium Gandhi 3.TheSeniorDivisionalManager,LifelnsuranceComorationoflndia Nagar, HYderabad 500 080. - 4.BDGPrasadaliasGanesh,S/o.B-Lingaiah,F/o'HNo'20319/10'LlC C"l";y, Drna Ro;d, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District 508 248'

5.G.Mallesham,S/o.LateGBalaiah,Fl/oHNo1146tA'Fathenagar'Medak District 502 110.

6. P. Muthiah Muthyalu, S/o P Lachaiah, Rl/o Appajipet, Village and Post Nalgonda Mandal and District' ...RESPONDENTS (Respondent no's 4 to 6 are not necessary parties in the Two Writ Apeals) IANO:3 OF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl51cPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to susPEND the order passed in Review lA No.01/2023 in wP No.228812013, dated' 26lllt2o24anddiredtheRespondentstocontinuethePetitionerinserviceas Sub-Staff/Peon. counser for the Apperra", , i"T.,";I1?],irt^1iT-iAo' Senior counser' counserrortheRespono"*',,t"Tl,t[otl3,!Xiffirlt[,tf"%]i'o!o'"'"'' W A.No.159 OF 2025 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 14tOOl2O22 in W P Nc, 2288 of 2013 on the file of the High Court' Between: S. Vishwanadham, S/o. Satyanarayana' Bolrum, Secunderabad- 500 010 FVo. H.No.41-29, Plot No.60 Dovtion Bazar, ...APPELLANTMIRIT PETITIONER AND 1 2 J 4 E 6 Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia, Rep by its Chairman, Jeevan Bhima M;rq P B No l99dg Mumbai 40o021, Maharastra State' Life lnsurance corporation of lndia, Rep by its Zonal Manager, South central Zonal Office Sr;creiariat Road Saifabad' Hyderabad' The Senior Dil'isional Manager, Life lnsurance Corporation of lndia S,ii,.r"O.j*0".j O*irionat Ofrice Jeevan Sagar Behind NTR Stadium Gandhi Nagar Hyderatrad 500 080 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS BDGPrasadaliasGanesh,S/o.B.Lingaiatr.99'INo20319/10LlCColony OinO noaO De'rarakonda Nalgonda District 508 248 G.Mallesham, S/o. late G Balaiah Rio H No 1146/A Fathenqgar Medak District 502 '1 10 p. MuthiahMuthvalu. s/o P Lachaiah R/o Appajipet village and Post Nalgonda rurunJriino oiJi*i i1,e Respondent No's- 4 to 6 are nest necessary parties in this Writ ApPeal). ...RESPONDENTS/wRtT PETITIONERS lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filerj in support of the petition, the High court may' be pleased to SUSPEND the orders in WP No.228812013, dated'26'11'2024 counser for the Apperra., , counserf ortheRespono",,"',:[:,tff tff i"11,"*Xi?Li"11?T-lAO' senior counser' [fiifi"#,t$*:f ,]^:J^"i15"" The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT -., THE HON,BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HON,BLE SMT' JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Nos. 1 426 &' 1432 of2o24 and t26 &1 59 of 2025 AND l MMON @er the Hon'ble the Achng Chie'r Justice fn$oA Paul)l JUDGM ENT Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi' learned Seniol Counsel represents Sri K' Srinivasa Rao' learned counsel for the appellants in W A'Nos' 1432 &' 1426 of 2024 ar'6 for the respondents irL W'A'Nos 126 & 159 of 2025 and Sri G' Vidya learnecl Senior Counsel represents Ms. K. \JdaYa Sri, learned counsr:l for the appellant in W'A'Nos '126 &' l-c9 o{"2025 and for the res;pondents in W'A N os'1432 & t426 of 2024' Sagar, 2 With the consent, finallY heard' a referred [o as Sri S'Vishwanadham and 3 others (hereinafter referred 3. to as turit pt:titioners') filed W'P'No '2288 of 2013 against Life Insurance rccrporation of India and its officers (hereinafter direction/Writ of 'Corporation') seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the Corporation in not aPPointing the writ Petitioners as sub-staff tn Pursuance of the written exarrrination held on 26 '06 '2}ll ' interview ald medical examination. Consequently' a direction is sought for to declare that the rvrit- petitioners are entitled to be appointed as sub-sta-ff I l 2 coming under Class-IV category along with other candidates who have appeared in the written examination held on 26.06.2011'

4. Upon contest, learned Single Judge, vide order dated

14.06.2022, allowed the . said writ petition holding that employment certificate and experience certificates are given by the Corporation in respect of the writ petitioners and therefore, the Corporation cannot deny the opportunity of employment to the writ petitioners when they have qualified in the written examination and also interview and medical test. Further, the learned Single Judge directed the Corporation to absorb tile writ petitioners into the services as Sub-Staff subject to employment certificate given to each of the petitioners being not cancelled by the Corporation.

5. The admitted position before us is that pursuant to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s).953-968 of 2005, dated 18.01.2011, in LIC of India v. D.V.Anil Kumar etc., the employees were required to be absorbed subject to fulfilling certain conditions. The condition which is relevant for adjudication of this matter is as under: "Candidates falling under Category (a) will have to submit copies of proof of working with the Corporation for more than five years as on the Chief 18.01.2011, duly signed by Manager/ Sr/ Branch Manager In-Charge of the Branch Ofhce, Manager (P&IR)/Manager (OS) of the t \ 3 respe,rtive Divisional Ofhce or the Regional Malager ipa'tR) / R.eio.ral Manager (OS) in respect of Zones i,h.;.I' the" candidate is working The onus of i"r"i,,fri"g authentic documentary proof for the ih" tim" of submission of the application ""-. "t shali be on the candidate'" Learne,l Senior Counsel for the Corporation submits that 6. the writ petitionr:rs filed the rnrit petition by contending that they have rendered rnore than hve years of service as on the cut-off date i.e. 18.01,2r011' However' one such writ petitioner:' namely Sri S. Vishwanildham, in his pleadings himseif mentjoned his date of frrst engagement as Ol 'O4 '2OO7 ' Counting from that date, he had not completed five years of service as on thei'said cut-off date

7. Learned. Senior Counsel for the Corporation further learned Single Judge considered the submits that experience/working certiflcates issued by the Corporation' and on the streng-h of those certificates' opined that the writ petitioners, indeed, rendered five years of service as on the cut- off date and directed to absorb the writ petitioners as sub-staff' Learne<l Senior Counsel for the Corporation further 8. submits that the Corporation did not admit that the writ petitioners hac. rendered hve years of service as on the cut-off date. Such ot,jection is categorically mentioned in the counter hled before the rn,rit court. Apart from this, the u,rit petitioners' ;w' 4

9. submits that the respondents fiIed a revi Review I.A.No. 1 of 2023 r- _"^ --_-_ S. vishwanaon"_ *r' he has not complets apprication was entertai ..n -^^.: ;,ffi#;;:.T Learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation further - q rcvr€w petition, namely in the writ petition pointing out that Sri engaged in the year 2ooz and therefore, ed five years of ser "- servtce. The review _i:,#,he iearned sing,e 's, except for Sri S. ''!t'

10. Learned submits that 07.o2.2O74 b Manager, who petitioners, of recruitment Senior Counsel for the Corpora,tion further the Corporation issued warning letters on the concerned Senior Bralch Manager/Branch had issued experience certificates to the writ cause of the irregularil:ies observed in the matter Lastly, it is submitted that in view of the State Bank of India v the writ court, at best, could have issued Judgment of Supreme Court Mohd.Mynuddinr, AtR 1987 sc 1889 I I 1 .1 u I I I 5 directions to c onsider the case of the writ petitioners for absorption ald could not have issued positirze direr:tion to absorb them 1 1 . Per con t.ra, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners submits that in the writ petition, the writ petitioners have mentioned a chart and spelled out the dates of their initial engagements. Because of a typographical error, the date of initial engageme:nt of one of the writ petitioners, namely Sri S. Vishwanailham, was mentioned as 01.04.2007 in place of

01.04.2001. The initia-l date of O1.04.2001 is matching with'nthe date mentioned in the experience certificate (page No.76). I.A.(SR)No. i 10804 of 2024 was filed before the writ court seeking correction in the said date of initial engagement, trut said interlocutory a.pplication was never decided. Treating that erroneous date to be correct, the order of writ court lvas modifred for writ petitioner No.1, Sri S. Vishwanadham. If innocuous I.A. for amendment vuould have been allowed, there would have been no occasion to cc,nsider and allow the review petil-ion.

12. So far the order of cancellation of candidatures on which relialce by learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation is placed, learned Senior Oounsel for the writ petitioners submits that a careful reading of the said document (page No.82l) shows that by I I 6 no stretch of imagination, it can be treated to be al "order". This is an annexure to a document ald was not addressed to anybody nor communicated to the writ petitioners officially. Admittedly, the writ petitioners passed the written examination, medical examination and other formalities. The only thing which was coming in their way was whether they have rendered five years of service as on the cut-off date or not. The only requirement was to produce the experience certif,rcates which were duly produced by the writ petitioners. The subsequent cancellation of those certificates aJter decision of the writ petition is of no assbtance to the Corporation. Learned Senior Counsel a-lso criticized the so-called "warning letters" dated 07.02.2014 which nowhere shows that warning was given because of certifying the experience /years of service of the writ petitioners. It is also pointed out that the Corporation was having the entire service records of the writ petitioners but they did not disclose the actual days of working in the counter filed before the writ court.

13. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

14. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on the rival contentions and perused the record. , , 7

15. This is not disputed before us that the writ petitioners have passed their written examination, interview and medical examination. 'Ihe singular point raised by the learn ed Senior Counsel for the Corporation is in relation to five years working of the writ petitioners before the cut-off date. As per the policy, the relevant portiorr of which has already been reproducecl by us, it is clea-r that- the certificates issued by the Branch Manager/ Senio r Branch Manager are entertainable. Admittedly, the writ petitiorr was filed equipped with such certihcates issued by the Branch Manager/Senior Bralch Manager certifyinglthat the writ petitioners have completed more thal five years of senice as on 113.01.20 11. The writ court did not disbelieve the said certificatr:s;. We hnd substance in the argument of the learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioners that before frling the counter alfidavit and even before deciding the wril. petition, the Corporat-ion had not cancelled those certificates. Cancellation of those certificates, after decision of the writ petition, cannot cause any dent to the order of learned Single Judge.

76. We also find substance in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners that the document (page No.82) cannot be treated to be an ..order,, and therelbre non_ challenge of that document will not have aly aclverse itnpact on i,l 8 the writ fetition.rs, more so when the writ petitioners categorically prayed for their appointment as sub-staff pursuant to their selection in the written examination, interview and medical examination.

17. One of the warning letters dated 07.02.2014 needs to be reproduced: ERDlsczlR/l3-r4136 Shri J Hari Lal, S.R.No.518O99, Branch Manager(MINS), Divisional Office, Warangal Dear Sir,

07.02.2014 Re: Irresularities observed in Recruitm ent of Peons During your tenure as Branch Manager, Devarakonda Branch Ofhce, Secunderabad Division, you had issued the employment certificate to Shri B.D.G.Prasad a/s Ganesh, without following the instructions contained in letter Ref. : PER/ MPR I CL4 I 20 I I - 12l LO60dated 1 5 .06.2O 1 1' for Recruitment ol Peons. Though the aforesaid irregularitSr attributed to you is of serious nature, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it has been decided to close the matter by 'warning' you. Hence, you are hereby warned to be careful, so as to avoid recurrence of such irregularities in future. Yours faithfullY, Executive Director (Personnelf

18. A careful reading of the aforesaid warning letter also shows that it is nowhere mentioned that the years so certifled by the certifying officer were found to be incorrect. Instead, it is , t 9 mentioned tkLa.t u'hile issuing the certificate, the in structions contained in the letter dated 15'06'2011 w'ere no1. followed' Thus,wefinrlnoflawintheorderoflearnerlSingleJudgein accepting the ,:xperience certihcates filed by the u'rit petitioners which were issued by the competent officers'

19. The rr atter may be viewed from anot'her angle' If the Corporation took a stald before the writ court thtrt the writ petitioners have not worked for the requisite period while inserting pa::etgraph No.3 in the counter, being custodian of records, it n-as obligatory for a model Corporation to sp8f out hou. many years of service the writ petitioners have put in' In the absence of showing any such duration, which Corporation ought to ha"'e shown, the writ court has rightly relied upon the certificates c,r the strength of which the writ petition was filed. At the cost c,f repetition, it is worth noting thzLt those certihcates were not isstLed during the pendency of the writ petition and were cancelk:d subsequently and such canceliation will not improve the case of the Corporation' 20 . So f ar the case of one of the writ petitioners, namely SriS.Vishu'anad.ham,isconcerned,itisseenthattr:rectifythe typographical error of date of initial engagement of O)"O4 '2OO7 in place of 01.04.2001, I.A.(SR)No.11O804 of 2024 was filed in the : .a \ 10 writ proceedings, but the said interlocutory application could not be forrnally allowed. Flowever, if the pleadings of the said interlocutory application are tested on the anvil of the experience certificate, it is clear that the error mentioned in the date of engagement is a typographical error ard the said writ petitioner also worked for more thal five years as on the cut-off date. Thus, tn review jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in depriving Sri S. Vishwanadham from the fruits of the main order passed in W.P.No.2288 of 2O 13. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 o?ZOZS in W.P.No.2288 of 2013 is set aside.

21. So far the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.Mynuddin (supra) is concerned, the iaw is \\,e11 settled that ordinarily in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Courts should issue directions to consider the case of the petitioners and not issue a mandamus to appoint or absorb them. Considering the aforesaid, we deem it proper to modi$z the order of the learne{ Single Judge by directing as under:

1. Since it is not in dispute that the writ petitioners have already passed their written examination, interview and medical examination, they shall not be again subjected to those examinations.

2. The experience/working of the writ petitioners as on the cut-off date shall be considered on the basis of experience certihcates filed with the writ petition and then the respondents shall consider the writ I I LT petitioners and pass appropriate orders of absorption as Fer rhe aloresaid ""ii.y *itr,,., ,ii",, a",l."om the datr, of receiving the copy of this order. 22. With the aforesaid directions, the writ appeals are disposed of. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall a,lso stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// DEdff [18fl'r'-'^H d.lln-,*;; ' IB"r:it'#3 i,,il?jnb|..,aii, t"jffi i::il SIJ[l", Jeevan Bh ima Mars, ' Iff 3. The Senior Divisional :*u, _sgd?:tsfl:ilfffl:. .,55i,,i,.s:33?",S^",?if ,llffi 4. One CC to SRt KAMBHAMPATT SR|N|VASA RAO, Advocate. IOpUCj 5. One CC to Ms.h..UDAyl \ SRI' Advocate [oPUc] 6. Two cD copies. ",'B??j*z5gij',,i,',i" S ff #j,,t",-!?:r,.t;"; oor r nd i a, s o utn Jntra r Si,$sH i\b BSK GJP . HE SI R r) ( ( ) .- ,t \.*\..\ 18 t:B t025 ((,( a ),-.. -- , 'nTr- -<-: ---:: ,r r.-O HIGH COURT DATED:1 010212025 COMMON ORDER WA.No.1426 & 1432 ot 2024 and 126 & 159 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS @y4' W