Judgment

MOHAN, J.:- Leave granted.

2. The short facts leading to this civil appeal are as under:

Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is the appellant in the civil appeal. It was established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 49 of the said Act empowers the Corporation to make regulations with prior approval of the Central Government. In exercise of these powers, the Corporation has framed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 providing for terms and conditions of service of the staff of the Corporation. Regulation 4 of the said Regulations empowers the Chairman of the Corporation to issue such instructions or directions as may be necessary to give effect and carry out instructions of the Corporation in order to secure effective control over the staff employed by the Corporation. The Chairman of the Corporation with the approval of the Board on 27-11-1979 issued the Life Insurance Corporation Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV staff) Instructions, 1979. These instructions also contain provisions for the appointment of staff on compassionate ground upon demise of a member of the staff of the Corporation while in service. These instructions are statutory in character. They have the force of law.

3. Clause 2, sub- clause (iii) of these Instructions reads, inter alia, as under :

"2. Relaxation in favour of near relatives of an employee who dies while in service :-

(i) & (ii) .........................

(iii) The relaxation shall be admissible only where none of the members of the family widow, son or unmarried daughter - is gainfully employed."

4. A Circular No. 2D/636/ASP/87 was issued by the Central Office of the Corporation on 20-1-1987. Clause 4 of the amended Circular is as under:

"4. Where any member of the family is employed, no appointment may be made on compassionate grounds."

5. One Shri Ramchandra Ambekar was employed as higher grade Assistant in the Sanda Branch under the Nasik Divisional Officer of the appellant Corporation. He expired suddenly on 11-8-1987. Upon his demise, the 1st respondent, his widow submitted an application seeking employment on compassionate grounds with the appellant Corporation. On 12-12-1987, the Corporation rejected the above said request on the ground that she had exceeded the upper age limit of 45 years. Therefore, her request could not be compiled with.

6. Subsequent thereto, the 2nd respondent made various representations on 8-5-1989, 1-7-1989, 18-6-1990 and 21-6-1991 seeking employment on compassionate grounds. By letter dated 21-10-1991, the appellant Corporation relying on Circulars dated 6-10-1987 and 21-1-1987 rejected the request. Thereupon Writ Petition No. 3157 of 1993 came to be filed by 2nd respondent to direct the appellant Corporation to appoint him on compassionate grounds. By the impugned judgment dated 19-10-1993 of the High Court, the appellant Corporation was directed to appoint 2nd respondent on compassionate grounds within four weeks of the date of the order. Hence, the present appeal.

7. Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Corporation would urge that the appellant Corporation cannot be directed to act contrary to the Regulations and Instructions which govern appointment on compassionate grounds. These Regulations which have been framed with good intent and purpose cannot be bypassed. The Regulations do not contemplate appointment on compassionate grounds when one of the members of the deceased family is gainfully employed.

8. Where the Corporation has acted bona fide and declined to appoint the 2nd respondent, that exercise of power cannot be interfered with. Shortly put, the Corporation cannot be directed by means of a mandamus to do something which is per se illegal.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents would urge that the High Court has correctly appreciated the matter and held that appointment on compassionate ground is ne