- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellants were in the select list of the year 1999 and according to the learned counsel for the appellants the appellants-petitioners were entitled for the appointment on the post for an indefinite period in view of the specific Clause 5 of the policy decision of the Life Insurance Corporation of India which provides that till the panel is exhausted or posts are advertised, the period whichever is less the panel will continue. However, this policy was superseded by another policy decision of the year 2007 whereby it has been provided that panel will survive for two years only. The petitioner was since in the select panel of the year prior to year 2007 therefore, a right accrued in the petitioner to get appointment in view of the unamended policy as the amended policy cannot be applied to the petitioners' case, therefore, the petitioners-appellants were entitled for the job.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon two judgments of the Gujrat High Court, one judgment of Bombay High Court and also relied upon one of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3.) However, we are of the considered opinion that in all those matters consideration was entirely different. Before the Gujrat High Court and Bombay High Court the Life Insurance Corporation of India itself conceded for giving appointment to some of the employees and in one of the Gujrat High Court's judgments i.e. the judgment delivered in the case of jesangbhai Chehabhai Maheriya Vrs. Union of India & Ors. the learned Single Judge of Gujrat High Court declined the relief to the employees who were already not given appointment and given relief to those persons who were already given appointment even on temporary basis. In Civil Appeal NO. 953-968 of 2005, before Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. D.V. Anil Kumar Etc. dated 19.01.2011, the Life Insurance Corporation of India came out with a specific scheme for giving employment to some persons who were in the select list and offered appointment after screening etc. Therefore, that was the case where, under one scheme some appointments were given. Admittedly here, in this case, the petitioners were not in the select list of 1999 and neither there is any undertaking nor there is any scheme for offering any appointment to the persons of the select list of the year 1999, therefore, the above case has no application.;