(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Ref.SZ/P and IR/Desk-III dated 21.08.2015 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in accordance with Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 and Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987.)
1. Several writ petitions have been filed by the Development Officers, who are presently working in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, CBO-IV branch, Madurai and other branches, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chennai in Reference NoSZ/PandIR/Desk-III dated 21.8.2015, with a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in accordance with the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 and Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and IV Employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987.
2. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the petitioners, who were selected for the post of Development Officer, a class II post, by way of direct recruitment and examination as per Rule 8 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 (for short, the 2009 Rules ?), are presently working in CBO-IV, Madurai and other branches. As per the 2009 Rules, they have got the avenue of promotion. If so, the Zonal Manager of LIC, the second respondent herein had issued a notification dated 1.8.2014 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer of various fields as mentioned in the notification stating that the completed application forms should be sent on or before 16.8.2014. In response to the said advertisement, since the petitioners were all eligible to be considered for promotion to the said post, they have duly submitted the filled in application forms dated 16.8.2014 to the competent authority and the Manager, (P and IR) addressed a letter to the Branch Manager, CBO-IV, Madurai and the other Branch Managers concerned advising them to handover the completed application forms of all the petitioners back to them stating that the post of Assistant Administrative Officer notified by the second respondent is meant for Class III employees alone, hence, they are not entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. Adding further the learned counsel submitted that as per Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules, they are all entitled to be considered for promotion as Assistant Branch Officer and Assistant Administrative Officer, therefore, their applications ought not to have been returned by the Branch Manager.
3. Continuing his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a mere comparison between the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and IV Employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987 (for short, the 1987 Rules ?) and the 2009 Rules filed herewith would certainly prove that all the petitioners are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer notified by the respondent-LIC on 1.8.2014. Since some of the petitioners filed W.P.No.24562 of 2014, this Court, protecting the interest of the petitioners, had granted an interim order and the said writ petition is also pending. However, the very same respondents had issued another notification dated 21.7.2015 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in item 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) Assistant Administrative Officer (Programmer) and Assistant Administrative Officer (Personal Assistant) indicating the last date as 5.8.2015. Again emphatically asserting that the Development Officers who are working in the Class II post are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in the light of the 1987 Rules as well as Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules, submitted that the respondents have no authority in law to return their applications instead of considering the same for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. Continuing further, Mr.R.Singaravelan submitted that the promotional avenue for a particular post is a constitutional mandate and as per the settled legal position, he pleaded that at least two or three promotions should be given to the Government and quasi government employees. While so, it is unfortunate to note that the respondents have failed to give an opportunity for promotion although all the petitioners are fully qualified and eligible to be considered for such promotion.
4. Again assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel submitted that when the petitioners had filed W.P.(MD) No.13467 of 2015 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider them for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer by receiving their applications in accordance with the 2009 Rules and to promote them if they are otherwise eligible, this Court, by order dated 31.7.2015, has passed an order stating that it is for the respondents to consider about the qualifications and other eligibility conditions in terms of the rules applicable for the employees of the LIC Corporation, however, without going to the merits of the matter, a direction was given to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners. When there is a specific direction given by this Court on 31.7.2015 to consider their case, the second respondent “Zonal Manager of LIC, without even considering the spirit of the order, rejected the claim as if the officers in class III, which is inferior to their grade, are entitled to be considered for promotion, therefore, the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, for the reason that when the officers working in class III, who are one step inferior to the petitioners, are made eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer, it is not known how the officers, who are above class III, cannot be made eligible. Hence he submitted that the impugned order of rejection refusing to give promotion is against the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Lila Kanta Barua and others v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, AIR 1980 SC 444, Dr.Ms.O.Z.Hussain v. Union of India, 1990 (Supp.) SCC 688, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another v. K.G.S.Bhatt and another, (1989) 4 SCC 635 and in State of Tripura and others v. K.K.Roy, (2004) 9 SCC 65.
5. Taking support from Rule 13 of the 2009 Rules dated 1.4.2009 and Rule 8 of the same Rules notified in the Government Gazette dated 12.11.2009, it has been submitted that all the petitioners have become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer as well as Assistant Branch Manager, since the 2009 Rules dated 1.4.2009 and 12.11.2009 have permitted them to compete for promotion to the post of Assistant Branch Manager, while so, it is incorrect to reject the applications of the Development Officers for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer, assigning a reason that their category is not mentioned as one of the categories in the Schedule to the 1987 Staff Rules read with Rule 5, which is clearly unfounded. It has been the claim of the petitioners that when the 2009 Rules are of recent origin, they naturally prevail over the old 1987 Rules, hence, it is the duty of the LIC to get the 1987 Rules amended from time to time in tune with Rule 13 of the 2009 Rules dated 1.4.2009, for the simple reason that Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules dated 12.11.2009 make the Development Officers eligible to compete for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. Regrettably, the same is not being done, although the Schedule to 1987 Rules and Rule 13 of the 2009 Rules make the Development Officers eligible to compete for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. In support of his submissions he has further submitted that as per the settled legal position, both sets of 2009 Rules dated 1.4.2009 and 12.11.2009 are to be construed as Special Rules and the 1987 Rules laying down the procedure for promotion have to be construed as the General Rules. While doing so, if the respondents are of the view that there is a conflict between the General and Special Rules, the Special Rules as per the law shall prevail over the General Rules. Contending further he submitted that when the 2009 Rules bringing forth a part of amendment to the 1987 Rules by making one more category of officer, namely, the Development Officer also eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer, therefore, the 1987 Rules ought to be read along with the 2009 Rules by applying the rule of harmonious construction. While referring to the Schedule to the 1987 Rules, he has further contended that the said Schedule has not prohibited all the petitioners to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer, because in the column meant for eligible categories, it is made clear that the employees who have put in five years of service in the scale of pay of Higher Grade Assistant also are eligible. This indicates that it is enough to reach the scale of pay of Higher Grade Assistant or more than that. Since the petitioners not only have reached the scale of pay of Higher Grade Assistant, but are receiving more, they can be made eligible to compete for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer.
6. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.Rathinaswami and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (2009) 5 SCC 625 and one another judgment in the case of Dr.Subramanian Swamy v. Raja, (2014) 8 SCC 390, Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel submitted that even assuming that the category of Development Officers is omitted to be mentioned in the 1987 Rules, it has to be interpreted to include that post also in view of the subsequent Special Rules brought in 2009 in order to save the constitutionality of 1987 Rules from the vice of discrimination. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments that the 2009 Rules and the 1987 Rules are to be read by applying the provisions of the statute to save it from unconstitutionality, the learned counsel submitted that the doctrine of reading down or of recasting the statute can be applied in limited situations. It is essentially used, firstly, for saving a statute from being struck down on account of its unconstitutionality. It is an extension of the principle that when two interpretations are possible, one rendering it constitutional and the other making it unconstitutional, the former should be preferred. The second situation which summons its aid is where the provisions of the statute are vague and ambiguous and it is possible to gather the intention of the legislature from the object of the statute, the context in which the provision occurs and the purpose for which it is made, justified the invocation of the principles of reading down the Rule. The learned counsel further submitted that when the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. This principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Dipak Babaria and another v. State of Gujarat and others, (2014) 3 SCC 502, therefore, when the 2009 Rules prescribe the avenue for promotion to the petitioners to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer who are the Development Officers, the LIC is required to follow the same without ignoring the same.
7. Drawing the attention of this Court to the Schedule in column 3 of Serial Nos.1 to 4, the learned counsel submitted that Serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 speak about the eligibility conditions for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. However, column 3 of Serial Nos.1 to 4 of the Schedule speaks about the eligible category for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer and in those categories the category of Development Officer is not included, conveying a meaning that the category of Development Officer is not eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. Rule 13 of the 2009 Rules dealing with the promotion of Development Officers says that any Development Officer considered suitable may be promoted as Assistant Branch Manager or Assistant Administrative Officer in accordance with Rule 7 of the Staff Rules, which also clearly speak about the direct recruitment and promotion to various classes of officers and staff. Therefore a combined reading of Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules dated 12.11.2009 and Rule 13 of the 2009 Rules dated 1.4.2009 and Rule 7 of the 1960 Regulations would clearly reveal that the Development Officers also can be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer or Assistant Branch Manager. As it has not been done so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Otherwise the petitioners will not be having the avenue of promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer, which is impermissible in law, in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another v. K.G.S.Bhatt and another (1989) 4 SCC 635 holding that the denial of promotion to higher post is unjustified.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, raising a preliminary objection, submitted that the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No. 15513 of 2015 filed by one Mr.P.Babu, who is a resident of Tiruvannamalai, is not maintainable in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of B.Stalin v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India and others 2012 (4) CTC 113. As the petitioner is residing permanently in Tiruvannamalai, citing the avenue of office, he cannot come to this Court. To decide the question of territorial jurisdiction, it is necessary to find out where the cause of action has arisen. In the present case, the office of the first respondent-Chairman of LIC is in Mumbai and the office of the second respondent is in Chennai and the petitioner is permanently residing in Tiruvannamalai, however, for the time being, he is serving in Tiruvannamalai branch office of LIC, therefore, as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in B.Stalin v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India and others 2012 (4) CTC 113, the writ petition filed by Mr.P.Babu before the Madurai Bench has to be dismissed.
9. Opposing the claim of the other petitioners, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan and Mr.G.Prabu Rajadurai, respective learned counsel for the LIC submitted that the second respondent had issued the notification dated 27.3.2015 for promotion of Development Officers to the cadre of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) stating that the Development officers who satisfied the conditions set out in the notification as on 28.2.2015 were eligible to apply for the same in the prescribed form on or before 27.4.2015. Since the 1960 Staff Regulations enabled and authorized the Corporation to fix such criteria for determining the suitability of Development Officers for promotion, the notification was issued and number of Development Officers had applied. Now there are four categories of Assistant Administrative Officers set out in the Schedule to the 1987 Rules. The post of Assistant Administrative Officer figuring in Serial No.1 contemplates promotion from feeder categories 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). The feeder category figuring in 1(c) is a recent incorporation. While so, the second category of Assistant Administrative Officer is known as Assistant Administrative Officer (Personal Assistant), the third category is Mobile Van Officer (Assistant Administrative Officer) and the fourth category is Assistant Administrative Officer (Programmer). The third category, namely, Mobile Van Officer is filled up based on the field necessity. However, at present, the employer does not feel the need to fill up the said post. Again urging this Court to dismiss the writ petitions, they submitted that the writ petitioners have not questioned the notification dated 21.7.2015, therefore, in the absence of challenge to the notification, the consequential selection process being made pursuant to the notification cannot also be challenged, hence, the order of rejection is sustainable in law and no interference is called for.
10. Continuing their arguments, both the learned counsel for LIC submitted that when it is clear that the promotion is intended to be given to the Assistant Administrative Officer under item 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), AAO (Programmer) and AAO(PA), the Mobile Van Officer (AAO) is not figuring in the said notification, therefore, when the writ petitioners are admittedly not figuring in the feeder categories, legally they cannot demand promotion to the said post either as a matter of right or even as a matter of concession, for the simple reason that the rules are statutory in character, hence the prayer of the petitioners to consider them for promotion to the post covered in the notification dated 21.7.2015 would be contrary to law.
11. Assailing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners do not have promotional avenues if they are not permitted to participate in the present selection process for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer being contrary to the rules and also the statistical data, both the learned counsel for LIC submitted that there are two streams of administrative set up, namely, administration and marketing. The Mobile Van Officers (AAO) fall in the marketing category only and they have enough and more promotional opportunities to the post of Assistant Branch Manager. While so, the promotion now sought to be made vide the notification dated 21.7.2015 pertains to the administrative stream alone, therefore, the Development Officers cannot make a cross over from the marketing wing to the administrative wing, merely citing Rule 13 of the 2009 Rules. In fact, Rule 13 says that any Development Officer who is considered suitable may be promoted as Assistant Branch Manager or Assistant Administrative Officer in accordance with Rule 7 of the Staff Rules. Even last year 200 vacancies were notified and when that was challenged in W.P.No.24562 of 2014 before the Principal Seat, the Corporation was permitted to go ahead with the selection process, but made the same subject to the result of the writ petition. In view of the interim order granted, the writ petitioners are not justified in making the same interim prayer again before this Court, because at present the promotion of class III employees are to be made for promotion in Serial Nos.1, 2 and 4, which is class I, in view of the interim order granted by this Court, their chances are fully affected. This apart, the promotion process for the year 2014-15 was already over and the promotion process for the class III employees in the administrative wing is midway, because the written test was already held on 21.8.2015 and 22.8.2015 and the results were also published, therefore, the balance of convenience is also not in favour of the writ petitioners. Adding further they submitted that when the vacancies are expected to be in the region of 150, only a set of 8 Development Officers have brought the selection process to a grinding halt, thus affecting not only the administrative force in the State of Tamil Nadu, but also in Kerala and Pondicherry, as they also come within the South zone, therefore, in the interest of justice, the interim order deserves to be vacated, they pleaded. When the statutory Schedule speaks of four categories of Assistant Administrative Officers, the Development Officers, the petitioners herein can lay a legitimate claim only to the third category, namely, Mobile Van Officers. Since at present promotions are to be made only to Serial Nos.1, 2 and 4 and for the reason that the writ petitioners are not falling within the zone of consideration, as they are not in the feeder category, their claim is not sustainable in law.
12. Answering the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners who are working as Development Officers are coming in class II category and when the respondents are allowing the employees in class III category to apply for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer, the Development Officers who are in class II cannot be denied the same promotional benefit, both the learned counsel for LIC submitted that the said contention is completely contrary to the statutory scheme. The reason is that the nature of work of the Development Officer is different from the other staff and their pay also depends on their performance unlike other staff and that is why the LIC has made the Special Rules for Development Officers. Over and above the salary given to the Development Officers, they are also given incentive bonus unlike others based on the business performance during the appraisal years. Besides, there is no maximum limit for their earnings and the incentive bonus earned by the Development Officers during the financial year 2013-14 is given as follows:-
| Incentive Bonus earned | Total No.of Development Officers |
| Upto 1 lakh | 299 |
| Above 1 lakh to 5 lakhs | 518 |
| Above 5 lakhs to 10 lakhs | 324 |
| Above 10 lakhs to 50 lakhs | 238 |
| Above 50 lakhs to 75 lakhs | 7 |
| Above 75 lakhs to 1 Crore | 1 |
13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
14. W.P.(MD) No.15513 of 2015 has been filed by Mr.P.Babu, who is residing in Tiruvannamalai challenging the impugned order dated 21.8.2015 passed by the Zonal Manager of LIC, the second respondent herein at Chennai. As the petitioner is residing in Tiruvannamalai, which is away from the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the LIC, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, since the Full Bench of this Court in the case of B.Stalin v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India and others 2012 (4) CTC 113 has held that the writ petition can be filed only before a Bench where the cause of action has arisen. Admittedly, the writ petitioner Mr.P.Babu has challenged the impugned order passed by the Zonal Manager of LIC at Chennai, therefore, no cause of action has arisen. Accordingly, in the light of the Full Bench judgment in B.Stalin's case (supra), W.P.(MD) No.15513 of 2015 is dismissed.
15. So far as the writ petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.15510, 15511, 15512, 15514, 15515, 15516 and 15517 of 2015 are concerned, all of them are working as Development Officers, a Class II category, in the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. Now all of them are contesting for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer on the basis of Rule 13 of the 2009 Rules dated 1.4.2009, which says that any Development Officer considered suitable may be promoted as Assistant Branch Manager or Assistant Administrative Officer in accordance with rule (7) of the staff rules. For easy understanding, the said Rule is reproduced hereunder:-
13. Promotion of Development Officers:
Any Development Officer considered suitable may be promoted as Assistant Branch Manager or Assistant Administrative Officer, in accordance with rule (7) of staff rules. ?
In this context, it is also relevant to refer to a Notification dated 12.11.2009 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services), Government of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with clause (cc) of sub-section (2) of section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 making the rules regulating certain terms and conditions of service relating to business performance of Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. As Rule 8 thereof is also more important, which is similar and same to Rule 13 of the 2009 Rules dated 1.4.2009, the same is also reproduced hereunder:-
8. Promotion of Development Officers:
Any Development Officer considered suitable may be promoted as Assistant Branch Manager or Assistant Administrative Officer, in accordance with rule (7) of staff rules. ?
It must be mentioned herein that there are four cadres of Assistant Administrative Officers set out in the Schedule to the 1987 Rules, among other cadres, clearly speaking about the conditions of eligibility for promotion to various cadres and they are reproduced hereunder:-
THE SCHEDULE
(See Rules 2(3), 5, 6 and 7)
CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTIONS TO VARIOUS CADRES
| Sl.No. | For promotion to the cadre of | Categories eligible | Conditions of eligibility | Marks to be allotted |
| 1 | Assistant Administrative Officers | (a)(i) Higher Grade Assistants(ii) Section Heads (b) [Assistants and Stenographers]* | 5 years' service in the scale of Higher Grade Assistants. Minimum service relaxable upto 3 years by Chairman depending upon the availability of candidates in the said cadre OR 6 years' service in the scale of Section Heads OR Combined service of 6 years in the scale of Higher Grade Assistant and/or Section Head(b) 5 years' service in the scale of Assistants or Higher and maximum age 35 years with academic qualifications Matric/HSC and technical qualification FFII Bombay or 5 subjects of Institute of Actuaries, London [or Actuarial Society of India]** and a pass in Promotion Test. | (a) Qualification and seniority: (Maximum of 10 marks for qualification and 20 marks for seniority)Maximum for both 25 Work Record 25 Interview 25 (b) For selection of Assistants etc., who Pass Promotion Test Test 50 Work Record 25 Interview 25 |
| 2 | Assistant Administrative Officer (Personal Assistant) | Higher Grade Assistants (Stenographers) | 5 years' service as Higher Grade Assistants (Stenographer) | Qualification and Seniority (Maximum 10 marks for qualification and 20 marks for seniority) Maximum for both 25Work Record 25 Interview 25 |
| 3 | Mobile Van Officers (Assistants Administrative Officers) | Higher Grade Assistants (Projectionists and other categories which satisfy the standards laid down for direct recruitment from time to time) | 5 years' service in the cadre of Higher Grade Assistants (Projectionists) | Qualification and seniority: (Maximum of 10 marks for qualification and 20 marks for seniority) Maximum for both 25Work Record 25 Interview 25 |
| 4 | Assistants Administrative Officers (Programmer) | (i) Higher Grade Assistants(ii) Section Heads | 5 years' service in the scale of Higher Grade Assistants OR 6 years' service in the scale of Section Heads AND A pass in the Aptitude Test for all except Higher Grade Assistants (Programmer) | Qualification and seniority:(Maximum of 10 marks for qualification and 20 marks for seniority) Maximum for both 25 Work Record 25 Interview 25 |
** Notified in Gazette of India dated 22.04.1997 and came into force with immediate effect (date of notification)
Since all the employees working in LIC of India can be broadly categorised as falling under two wings, namely, administrative wing and marketing wing, it is also required to set out the respective hierarchy at the Divisional level, which is given as under:-
| Category | Administrative Wing | Marketing Wing |
| Senior Divisional Manager (In charge) Head of the Division | ||
| Class I | Divisional Manager | Marketing Manager/Chief Manager |
| Assistant Divisional Manager | Senior Branch Manager or Manager (Sales) | |
| Administrative Officer | Branch Manager | |
| Assistant Administrative Officer | Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) | |
| Class II | Nil | Development Officer (Class II) |
| Class III | Higher Grade Assistant | Nil |
| Assistants | ||
| Record Clerk | ||
| Class IV | Sub-staff /Watchman/ Drivers/Sweepers | Nil |
17. A careful reading of the aforementioned Schedule dealing with the conditions of eligibility for promotion to various cadres shows that there are four promotional cadres of Assistant Administrative Officers shown in Serial Nos.1 to 4, which are (1) Assistant Administrative Officers, (2) Assistant Administrative Officer (Personal Assistant), (3) Mobile Van Officer (Assistant Administrative Officer) and (4) Assistant Administrative Officer (Programmer). For the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer in Serial No.1, a Higher Grade Assistant having five years service in the scale of Higher Grade Assistant or a Section Head having six years service in the scale of Section Head or a combined service of six years in the scale of Higher Grade Assistant and/or Section Head or Assistants and Stenographers having five years of service in the scale of Assistants or Higher etc., are eligible and entitled to compete for the said post. For the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer (Personal Assistant) in Serial No.2, Higher Grade Assistants (Stenographers) having five years service as Higher Grade Assistants (Stenographers) are eligible and entitled to compete for the said post. For the cadre of Mobile Van Officer (Assistant Administrative Officer) in Serial No.3, which is also earmarked for marketing wing according to the respondents, Higher Grade Assistants (Projectionists) and other categories which satisfy the standards laid down for direct recruitment from time to time) with five years service in the cadre of Higher Grade Assistants (Projectionists) are eligible and entitled to compete for the said post. Similarly for the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer (Programmer) in Serial No.4, Higher Grade Assistants with five years service in the scale of Higher Grade Assistants or Section Heads with six years service in the scale of Section Heads etc., are eligible and entitled to compete for the said post. When the above Schedule clearly gives way for Higher Grade Assistant with five years service in the scale of pay of Higher Grade Assistant in the administrative wing made eligible and entitled to apply or compete to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer falling in Serial Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4, more particularly, when a Higher Grade Assistant having five years service in the cadre of Higher Grade Assistant (Projectionist) is entitled to apply to the post of Mobile Van Officer (Assistant Administrative Officer) in the marketing wing, it is not known why the writ petitioners who are all working as Development Officers, a Class II post which is admittedly higher than the Higher Grade Assistant, a Class III employee, should not be allowed to participate or compete for the promotional post of Assistant Administrative Officer, since the post of Higher Grade Assistant being inferior to Class II Officers, namely, Development Officers. This Court is of the considered opinion that the rejection of the request of the petitioners/Development Officers belonging to Class II drawing higher salary than the Higher Grade Assistant belonging to Class III by the respondents is not only in violation of Rule 13 of the 2009 Rules dated 1.4.2009, but also running contrary to Rule 8 of the very same Rules notified in the Government Gazette dated 12.11.2009, which makes the petitioners eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer as well as Assistant Branch Manager.
18. When a specific argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the aforementioned Rule 13 dated 1.4.2009 and Rule 8 dated 12.11.2009 of the 2009 Rules claiming that the Development Officers have become eligible to compete for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer and Assistant Branch Manager as per the Rule legally, the counter affidavits filed by the respondents only aver that the 1987 Rules were framed taking into consideration of all the above aspects and codified the same in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 48 of the LIC Act, 1956 which got published in the Official Gazette on 25.11.87 by the Central Government. As already mentioned, when the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services), Government of India dated 12.11.2009 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with clause (cc) of subsection (2) of Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 making the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009, more particularly Rule 8 dealing with promotion of Development Officers clearly speak that any Development Officer considered suitable may be promoted as Assistant Branch Manager or Assistant Administrative Officer in accordance with rule (7) of the staff rules, the averments made by the respondents that the promotional Rules 1987 were framed taking into consideration of all the aspects by publishing a notification in the Official Gazette on 25.11.87 by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 48 of the LIC Act, has to be given a go-by, in view of Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in the contention of the respondents that it is unlawful for them to lay a claim for promotional avenues earmarked for Higher Grade Assistants etc., working in Class III, when a specific avenue of promotion is available for the Development Officers to become Assistant Branch Managers. In other words, if the supervisory and clerical staff falling in Class III in the so-called administrative wing are made eligible to participate and compete for the promotional post of Assistant Administrative Officer falling in Class I, it is not known how the Development Officers falling in Class II are not allowed to compete for the said post, even though they are drawing salary over and above the Higher Grade Assistants, etc., solely on the ground that they are entitled to compete only for the post of Mobile Van Officer (AAO) in Serial No.3 of the Schedule to the 1987 Rules, when the Rule 13 read with Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules is crystal clear and unambiguous under the statute in the so-called marketing wing. Therefore, in the light of the above, although the Zonal Manager of LIC, the second respondent herein had issued a notification dated 1.8.2014 inviting applications from eligible employees for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer of various fields fixing the last date as 16.8.2014, the rejection of the completed application forms of the petitioners on the ground that they are not entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer is legally unsustainable. So long as the Rule 13 of the 2009 Rules dated 1.4.2009 read with Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules dated 12.11.2009 clearly makes the Development Officers working in the Life Insurance Corporation of India eligible to compete for the promotional post, they are legally entitled to apply and compete for the promotional post, hence the respondents cannot stop them by means of any instructions or circular, unless the statutory rules are modified or rescinded in the manner known to law by citing the reason that administrative and marketing streams are different to each other. When the impugned orders are not in accordance with the statutory mandate, the same are unsustainable in the eye of law, as the respondents are bound by the statutory mandate specified in the 2009 Rules. Moreover, it is well settled legal position that if the law requires that a particular thing should be done in a particular manner it must be done in that way and none other. In this context, it is relevant to refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in Dipak Babaria and another v. State of Gujarat and others, (2014) 3 SCC 502, wherein the Apex Court, quoting with approval the judgments in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426, Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253, ruled as follows:-
72. In our view, considering the scheme of the Act, the process of industrialization must take place in accordance therewith. As stated earlier if the law requires that a particular thing should be done in a particular manner it must be done in that way and none other. The State cannot ignore the policy intent and the procedure contemplated by the statute. In the instant case, the State could have acquired the land, and then either by auction or by considering the merit of the proposal of Respondent 5 allotted it to Respondent 5. Assuming that the application of Respondent 5 was for a bona fide purpose, the same had to be examined by the Industries Commissioner, to begin with, and thereafter it should have gone to the Collector. After the property vests in the Government, even if there were other bidders to the property, the Collector could have considered the merits and the bona fides of the application of Respondent 5, and nothing would have prevented him from following the course which is permissible under the law. It is not merely the end but the means which are of equal importance, particularly if they are enshrined in the legislative scheme. The minimum that was required was an enquiry at the level of the Collector who is the statutory authority. Dictating him to act in a particular manner on the assumption by the Minister that it is in the interest of the industrial development would lead to a breach of the mandate of the statute framed by the legislature. The Ministers are not expected to act in this manner and therefore, this particular route through the corridors of the Ministry, contrary to the statute, cannot be approved. The present case is clearly one of dereliction of his duties by the Collector and dictation by the Minister, showing nothing but arrogance of power. ?
19. The above observation squarely applies to the present cases, inasmuch as when Rule 13 dealing with promotion of Development Officers requires that any Development Officer considered suitable may be promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer in accordance with rule (7) of the staff rules, it must be done in that way and the respondents cannot ignore the same.
20. While going to the interpretation of Rule 13, it is pertinent to see the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector General, National Investigation Agency v. Mohd. Hussain alias Saleem, (2014) 1 SCC 258, holding succinctly as follows:-
19. We cannot ignore that it is a well-settled canon of interpretation that when it comes to construction of a section, it is to be read in its entirety, and its subsections are to be read in relation to each other, and not disjunctively. Besides, the text of a section has to be read in the context of the statute. A few subsections of a section cannot be separated from other sub-sections, and read to convey something altogether different from the theme underlying the entire section. That is how a section is required to be read purposively and meaningfully. ?
21. Applying the above principle, if Rule 13 in question is seen, there is no doubt that any Development Officer considered suitable may be promoted as Assistant Branch Manager or Assistant Administrative Officer in accordance with rule (7) of the staff rules, hence the petitioners working as Development Officers are eligible to compete for the promotional post of Assistant Administrative Officer.
22. For all the aforementioned reasons and conclusions, the impugnedorders passed by the respondents are absolutely bereft of any merit and they areliable to be set aside on the ground that it is not in accordance with the statutorymandate. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. It is made clear thatthe petitioners are entitled to participate and compete in the future vacancies forthe promotional post of Assistant Administrative Officer on the basis of Rule 13dated 1.4.2009 and Rule 8 dated 12.11.2009 of the 2009 Rules. With theseobservations, W.P.(MD) Nos.15510 to 15512 and 15514 to 15517 of 2015 areordered accordingly. Consequently, M.P.(MD) Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2015 are closed.However, there shall be no order as to costs.