D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioners was allowed to appear in a selection test held on 23-4-1989 conducted by the respondents upon relaxation of Recruitment Rules pursuant to a settlement between its workmen and the respondents in terms of an order passed by the Apex Court as stated in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the petitioner alleges that he was successful in the test and had qualified for appointment but in the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner had admitted that he did not qualify in the test held on 23-4-1989. On the other hand, in the rejoinder affidavit it was claimed that the petitioner was given another opportunity, in which he had appeared and succeeded in the written test, as a result thereof, he was called on to appear in the typing test. In the rejoinder-affidavit it is pleaded that the petitioner hopes that he had been successful in the typing test and therefore should be given appointment. On this background, Mr. G.R. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents in their counter-affidavit did not disclose these facts and on account of non-disclosure of such facts, the respondents had played fraud on the Court and therefore they are bound to appoint the petitioner. He further contends that the respondents have not come up with clean hands and had not placed all cards on the table, therefore, adverse presumption should be drawn against them to support the petitioners claim. The petitioner is eligible and entitled to be appointed by reason of the settlement in terms of the order of the Apex Court.
(2.) Mr. Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner was originally appointed in terms of Regulation 8(1) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, therefore, by reason of Regulation 8(2) of the said Regulations the petitioner could not claim any right to appointment or preference for recruitment to any post. However, by reason of the settlement as directed by the Apex Court, relaxing the Relevant Rules for recruitment, such persons alike the petitioner were given an opportunity for being selected. The petitioner having admitted in the rejoinder affidavit that he had been unsuccessful in the test held on 23-4-1989, he cannot claim any right on the basis of such test. However, thereafter the respondents had given a second opportunity to the petitioner in which he was successful in the written test and was called on for appearing in the typing test. Mr. Goyal relied on Annexure R.A-3 to the rejoinder affidavit to point out that it was only successful candidates in the typing test, who were to be called on for interview. There was no obligation on the part of the respondents to intimate unsuccessful candidates about result of the test. According to him, the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit in paragraph 7(1) had himself expressed that he hopes that he had passed the test. There is no specific assertion that he was successful in the typing test. No one can claim any right on the basis of his hope, and therefore, the assertion of the respondent that the petitioner was unsuccessful in the typing test and hence was not called for interview, stands fortified. Mr. Goyal had also relied on two decisions cited at the bar, to which reference would be made at the appropriate stage, in support of his contentions. On these grounds, Mr. Goyal submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard both Mr. Jain and Mr. Goyal at length.;