( 1 ) THE petitioners, 99 in number and roughly hundred and more others were appointed by the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (L. I. C.) de hors the relevant recruitment rules as members of the sub-staff against the clear existing vacancies. They have put in between 5 to 12 years of service. The petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the management of the L. I. C. to absorb all the petitioners on permanent basis and they have sought consequential relief to restrain the management of the L. I. C. from terminating the services of the petitioners.

( 2 ) IN response to rule nisi, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit opposing the claim of the petitioners. In the counter, it is claimed that in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court relating to absorption/regularisation of the service of temporary/ad hoc/casual employees, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed by them; the Life Insurance Corporation of India Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions, 1993 and Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 govern the recruitment of the employees to the sub-staff of the Corporation; all the petitioners and roughly 100 and more others were appointed de hors the above rules and therefore they are not entitled to be regularised in the service on permanent basis; similar writ petitions W. P. No. 19426/96 and W. P. No. 24979/97 and W. A. No. 22 of 1998 filed before this Court were dismissed. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners to the counter-affidavit reiterating the same contentions taken in the main affidavit. Added to this, the petitioners have high-lighted in the reply affidavit the hardship that may be caused to them if the Court refuses to grant the relief.

( 3 ) MR. G. Sudha, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that having regard to the length of service put in by the petitioners, they are entitled to be regularised in the service. In support of her submission, learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130, Arun Kumar Rout v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1477, and the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Pramod Bank v. Registrar, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and others, 1998 Lab. I. C. 1694.

( 4 ) CLAUSE (1) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India mandates that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under die State, and Clause (2) of that Article further mandates that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. Clauses (I) and (2) of Article 16 guarantee equality of opportunity to all citizens in the matter of appointment to any office or any other employment, under the State. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14 and it should be construed as such. What Article 16 (1) guarantees is an equal opportunity to all citizens to apply for employment under the State. The right guaranteed by Article 16 (1) includes the right to make an application for any post under the Government as held by the Supreme Court in Krishna Chander v. Central Tractor Organisation, AIR 1962 SC 602 and a right to be considered on the merits for the post for which an application has been made as held by the Supreme Court in Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 564 and High Court, Calcutta v. Amal Kumar, AIR 1962 SC 1704. The guarantee in clause (1) of Article 16 is to each individual and with reference to each occasion of recruitment as held by the Supreme Court in Devadasan v. Union of India, (1964) 4 SCR 680. What Article 16 (1) guarantees is an equality of opp