- (1.) The petitioner who retired as a Senior Branch Manager from the service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India applied for the grant of an Agency. His application was rejected. The order was conveyed to him vide letter dated September 1, 1992. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondent it has been pointed out that in the year 1981 decision had been taken that "LIC Agency will not be given to any applicant whose spouse (husband or wife) is employed in the Central/State Government or in any Public Sector Undertakings". Since the petitioner's wife is admittedly working as a Teacher in a Govt. School, he is not eligible and his request has, therefore, been declined.
(2.) Mr. Chatrath has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, it is urged that the instructions issued by the Corporation vide letter dated August 13, 1981, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure R-1 with the written statement are violative of the provisions of regulation 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the Regulations). Secondly, the counsel has submitted that the action suffers from the vice of discrimination inasmuch as various other persons whose spouses are also employed either with the Govt. or with a Public Sector Undertaking have been granted agencies.
(3.) As for the first contention, we have perused the provisions of regulation 4. It only authorises the Corporation to appoint agents and lays down the procedure. The instructions issued by the respondent do not violate any of the provisions of regulation 4. If at all, they are supplementary. Therefore, the first contention is rejected. As for the second contention, it has been explained on behalf of the respondent that certain persons had been granted agencies as they had "stated in their application forms that their spouses are not in the service of Central/State Govt./Public Sector Undertaking". However, on receipt of a complaint an enquiry was ordered and action has been taken. The latest position has been explained in the affidavit of Mr. I.S. Maingi which shows that the agencies of four persons have already been terminated. With regard to 7 other persons mentioned by the petitioner, it has been found that the allegations are false. In the case of 6 persons, their spouses are not employed with the Govt. or with any instrumentality of the Govt. With regard to Smt. Barjinder Kaur it has been found that she is a divorcee. In two cases of Smt. Jagdish Kaur and Smt. Kamla Jain, the matter is said to have been referred to the Vigilance Officer for appropriate action against the Branch Manager and further action to terminate the agencies shall be taken. Termination notices have been issued to Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma and Smt. Neelam Sood. It is thus clear that on coming to know of the mistake, the remedial action has been initiated. Even if it were not so, no citizen can claim that a writ of mandamus be issued to perpetuate a wrong. No direction can be issued to the Corporation that it must act in violation of the instructions of circulars issued by it. Consequently, the petitioner's contention that the action is discriminatory cannot be sustained.;