unlimited years
  Sardar Singh Palthiya Appointed As Assistant Director (Legal) At IRDA By Hyderabad High Court  
HOME 01 Oct 2013  
  Source : Team Hyderabad  
 

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 

Who will regulate the regulator? AP High court pass a judgment awarding employment to a candidate against irregularities committed by IRDA (Nation Regulator of Insurance)

 

The issue presently is as to the methodology adopted by the IRDA while effecting recruitment to the posts of Assistant Director (Legal) in its service. The IRDA issued notification dated 23.10.2010 for filling up the posts of Assistant Director (Legal), Assistant Director (Actuary) and Assistant Director (Accounts).  Five posts of Assistant Director (Legal) were notified, of which one was reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC), two for Scheduled Tribes (ST), one for ‘Other Backward Castes’ (OBC) and only one post was left unreserved. The minimum qualification prescribed was a LLB degree from a recognized university and the experience desired was stipulated as two years. Clause 6 of the notification dealt with the mode of selection and stipulated that a Screening Committee would examine the applications and qualified candidates would be called for the written test/interview. It was further stated that a written examination in the relevant area of specialization would be held and candidates would have to secure the minimum marks as decided by the competent authority. The IRDA also reserved a right in itself to modify the selection procedure, if deemed fit.  Under the ‘general instructions’, the IRDA stated that it reserved the right to vary the number of posts in each category depending on the need and also modify the qualifications prescribed therefor.

          The petitioner, a practising advocate belonging to a ST community with over two years of experience and a LLM degree in Corporate Law, applied for the post of Assistant Director (Legal). He was called for the written examination held on 23.01.2011 and then, the interview on 24.03.2011. He was however not selected for the post.  In response to his queries under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the IRDA informed him that four appointments were made to the posts of Assistant Director (Legal). Of these, three were under the unreserved category and one was under OBC category. He was further informed that the cut-off marks in the written examination for general and OBC candidates was fixed at 180 marks and for SC and ST candidates at 150 marks. The names of the four candidates who were appointed were disclosed but he was not furnished information as to the marks secured by them. He was further informed that as per the relative ranking allotted during the interview, six candidates had been short listed by the Selection Committee and were recommended for appointment.

          The petitioner pointed out that though two posts were reserved for ST category and he, being a ST candidate, had emerged successful in the written examination and was called for interview, he was denied appointment without reason. He contended that the IRDA had made appointments in complete violation of the reservations set out in the notification and the entire selection process was therefore arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner contended that the notification did not indicate that any marks would be awarded in the interview and consequently, the action of the IRDA in holding that he was not suitable for appointment basing on the interview despite his securing more than the required marks in the written examination was unjustified. He therefore sought a direction to the IRDA to appoint him to the post of Assistant Director (Legal).

          By order dated 07.12.2011, this Court directed the IRDA to keep vacant one post meant for Scheduled Tribes, which was kept unfilled, pending further orders.   Later today Sardar Singh Palthiya got the Judgement in his favour by Hon'able Hyderabad High Court.

Download Judgement Copy

 
     
     
     
     
  IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court vIRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court IRDA AP Hyderabad high court  
     
     
 
 
     
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...
Free counters!