A temporary employee's entitlement to absorption in service is contingent upon compliance with recruitment notifications and regulations, as affirmed by the court.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“…..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action on the part of Respondent No 3 in declining Petitioners request for giving appointment to the Petitioner as Stenographer at Senior Divisional Manager Office Life Insurance Corporation of India Machilipatnam Krishna District with all service benefits as same is illegal against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to give appointment to the Petitioner as Stenographer at Senior Divisional Manager Office Life Insurance Corporation of India Machilipatnam Krishna District with all service benefits and pass….”

2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, she appointed as Stenographer Post at Senior Divisional Manager Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, from then onwards for 89 days till the month of November, 1990, she had discharged her duties as Stenographer without there being any complaints from any quarters, later she has been terminated from services for the reasons best known to them. Later, the petitioner has appeared for Stenographer Examination conducted by Respondents for filling up 5 posts after she obtained directions from Hon'ble District Forum, but officials concerned have not permitted her to participate in selection process in pursuance of Notification dt. 19-03-1991. It is stated that, while at the time of notification, as the petitioner realized that B.Com as a qualification is not sufficient enough to secure a job and also as there is a heavy demand for technical courses like typewriting, short hand and computer knowledge, she got herself trained in both. To her credit, she already passed typewriting higher grade examination with 69.5% marks in the year 1986, she passed Short Hand intermediate examination with 62% marks in the year 1990, the present speed (in short hand) is 120 words per minute. The Degree Percentage is 62.7% (B.com) and she is recipient of gold medal for securing 100% marks in statistics in B.Com Examination. So, as the petitioner has got highest percentage of marks, she had been under the impression that she would get appointment as Stenographer. But her application got rejected for pre recruitment test stating that the cutoff percentage is 63% and she secured 62.7% in graduation. The Respondents have considered only the percentage in Graduation and did not take into consideration the marks obtained in shorthand which is required for a stenographer post, which violates the paper advertisement given the pre- recruitment test Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the District Consumer forum, regarding the misuse of paper Advertisement and loss incurred to her. The said petition was allowed by the District Consumer forum and permitted her to appear for pre recruitment test held on 09-06-1991 and stated that the Examination paper should be separately placed in a sealed cover and result of it will not be announced until further orders. At the time of examination, the Respondents took the appointment order and termination order. On the Other hand some of the Terminated Temporary employees those who worked in the year 20-05-1985 to 04-03-1991 have approached Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi for absorption as a permanent employee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India allowed the petition Contempt (C) No.1921/2017 IN Civil Appeal No. 6950/2009 and forwarded the case to Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), New Delhi. Later, the CGIT has passed award regarding the absorption of concerned workmen in permanent posts and liability of paying all consequential benefits and monetary benefits by the Corporation and same is given as judgment on 18-03-2015.

While so the Respondent No.3 in PLC 118/2020 in Para.10 stated that the Petitioner filed one Industrial Dispute No.27/1991 be