- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. Pursuant to an adver tisement published on 20-6-1989 inviting applications for the post of Assistant in the Divisional Office of Life Insurance Corporation of India, in district Gorakhpur, the petitioner appeared in the written examination fixed on 22-10-1989 and was duly selected and was called for interview alongwith others on 12-12-1989. Out of the '325' persons called for inter view, after being successful in written ex amination, '160' persons who were selected finally were given appointment letters and contingency list or'180' other persons were prepared for being accom modated in future vacancy during the next two years. The petitioner's name did not figure either in the select list or in the contingency list. The petitioner claimed preference on account of his passing the 'licentiate examination' conducted by the Federation of Insurance Institute. Accord ing to him, in view of the Clause 10, as contained in the Examination Hand Book of the Federation of Insurance Institute, the petitioner should have been given ap pointment by giving preference because of his additional qualification of having passed the Licentiate examination. Despite representation the petitioner has not been given preference in the selection. All his representations dated 19-7-1991, 20-8-1991, 17-9-1991, 4-11-1991 (An-nexures-7,8,9 and 10 to the writ petition) have been ignored. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned selection and A mandamus commanding the respon dents to select the petitioner by giving preference on account of his additional qualification.
(2.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. P. Goel, learned counsel for the respondents it appears that the advertisement for the post did not contain any condition that any preference should be given on account of alleged additional qualification of the petitioner. Nothing has been shown to this Court that the alleged qualification is an additional qualification, entitling the petitioner to preference. Clause 10 of the Examination Hand Book of the Federa tion of Insurance Institute, provides "lic and GIC have decided that in all future recruitment preference will be given, other things being equal, to the persons who have passed the Licentiate examina tion of the Federation of Insurance In stitute. " No decision of LIC or GIC to that effect have been produced before this Court. In the counter-affidavit, it has been contended that the said Clause D does not find the L. I. C. in the matter of recruit ment, which is being governed by the statutory regulations, namely L. I. C. of India Recruitment (of Class-III and Class-IV Staff) Instruction, 1979. Nothing has been shown as to how the alleged qualification is recognised for the pur poses of recruitment in the Organisation of the respondents. In any event the Recruitment regulation having statutory force the respondents L. I. C. can not ig nore the same. The non-statutory or ganisation namely, Federation of In surance Institute can not lay down any conditions for recruitment to the post in L. I. C. Neither the decision of non-statutory authority is binding on the statutory authority. Even, though unless it is incorporated in the regulation, no benefit can be had out of the alleged addi tional qualification. It is to take a shape in the form of regulation by its incorporation in the Recruitment Regulation, being 1979 Instruction. Admittedly, 1979 In struction does not provide for giving of any preference on account of the alleged qualification. Unless sunnorted by the Statute and stipulated in the advertise ment the alleged additional qualification of the petitioner cannot be recognised for grant of preference. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of preference on account of Clause 10 of the said examination Hand Book of the In stitute which neither has any statutory force nor is binding of L. I. C. out of his alleged additional qualification, in the facts and the circumstances of the case.
(3.) IN the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;