ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. Shri P. Mathur, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.I. Mehta, Counsel for respondents 1, 2, 3. Shri C.L. Yadav, Counsel for Respondent 4. The petitioner is hereby assailing the order of appointment of Respondent No. 4 in the employment of Life insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC for convenience) as Apprentice Development Officer, which is Annexure P. 4 and for issuing a Writ of Mandamus for appointing him to that post in place of Respondent No. 4. The petitioner averred that undue favour has been shown by respondents 1, 2, 3 to respondent No. 4 and by giving him a partial and favourable treatment, dropping the claim of the petitioner for being appointed to the said post. Shri Mathur counsel appearing for the petitioner demonstrated by referring to Annexure P. 4, the employment Notice. He submitted that one post was available for appointment by following the selection procedure indicated by Anx.P.4 and for that, Clause 7 of the said Employment Notice was indicating the eligibility conditions. He submitted that the eligibility mentioned by Clause 8 was pertaining to Open Market Candidates belonging to other backward classes other than those in "creamy layer". The age should have been 33 years. Eligibility condition required for the candidates coming from existing agents of LIC belonging to OBC's, other than those in "creamy layer", was 40 years. It is the submission of Shri Piyush Mathur that in respect of experience needed, the respondents 1, 2, 3 put respondent 4 to a lower cadre by indicating in the said employment notice that for existing life insurance agents, the experience should have been of atleast five years as agent and he should have completed a net first year premium of not less than Rs. 1,35,000/- during the immediately preceding five agency years. A net first year premium should have been of not less than Rs. 22,000/- on 20 lives per year in any three of the immediately 4 preceding agency year. He submitted that the experience which was required from open market candidates was of sales experience of atleast two years in a reputed organisation. It is the submission of Shri Mathur that when the employment notice was putting respondent 4 to a lower gradation, it was not proper, fair and just for respondents 1, 2, 3 to appoint respondent 4 by dropping the claim of the petitioner. It is the submission of Shri Mathur that when the employment notice was putting respondent 4 to a lower gradation, it was not proper, fair and just for respondents 1, 2, 3 to appoint respondent 4 by dropping the claim of the petitioner. Shri Mathur further submitted that the selection procedure has been indicated at S. No. 8 which was indicating that "selection will be made on the basis of written test followed by an interview of candidates who qualify at the written test." For the candidates from open market, the paper would be revolving around test of reasoning and numerical ability. According to him the paper was revolving around elements of insurance and marketing of insurance for candidates from agents category. He submitted that by putting this criteria the respondents 1,2,3 already gave a weightage to the experience of Respondent 4 as an agent and, therefore, there was no need of showing more favour than that. Shri Mathur further submitted that in written test as well as in interview the petitioner secured more marks than respondent 4 and, therefore, the respondents 1, 2, 3, should have been appointed him to said post and as it has not been done, the appointment of Respondent 4 needs to be quashed by issuing appropriate writ and the petitioner needs to be appointed to the said post by issuing a Writ of Mandamus in his favour and against respondents 1, 2, 3 by allowing this petition. This is the sum and substance of the submission advanced on behalf of petitioner by Shri P. Mathur. Shri Y. I. Mehta, submitted that respondents 1, 2, 3, have acted fairly and in just way for the purpose of protecting their interest in commercial field for securing more business, they gave preference to respondent 4 and respondent 4 was appointed by Zonal Manager, LIC, Jeevan Kshem, Bhopal. Shri Mehta submitted that Selection Committed demonstrated the marks obtained by both petitioner and respondent 4 in the process of written examination and the interview and that was submitted by the Selection Committee to the higher authority, the Zonal Manager. He made reference to that while referring to the record in that context. Shri Mehta submitted that Selection Committed demonstrated the marks obtained by both petitioner and respondent 4 in the process of written examination and the interview and that was submitted by the Selection Committee to the higher authority, the Zonal Manager. He made reference to that while referring to the record in that context. Shri Y. I. Mehta submitted that the LIC would be entitled to secure its interest and for that purpose it is nothing wrong to give preference to the LIC Agent who has already worked in it and already secured business for proving his ability. He submitted that writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it be dismissed. Shri C. L. Yadav, counsel appearing for Respondent 4 made submission in the same way as Shri Mehta submitted. He justified the appointment of Respondent 4 and submitted that there was nothing improper and illegal in his appointment. He submitted that writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it be dismissed. When a corporation coming under the category of "State" as provided by Indian Constitution engages itself in an act of appointment by a procedure of selection and prescribes a detailed procedure for it, it has to follow it in strictness and has to make the appointment consistent with the said selection procedure. The said selection procedure has been given in detail in Employment Notice. While giving such notice and inviting the applications from the probable candidates, the LIC was at liberty of providing a reasonable criteria for the purpose of giving weightage to the candidates coming from various categories as accepted by it in the Employment Notice that has been done. Not only that but the selection procedure was consistent with the availability of the posts as indicated by category which has been titled "Likely Numbers of Posts". Eligibility conditions have been indicated by clause No. 7. There was no dispute that both the petitioner and Respondent 4 are hailing from O.B.C. category. Said notice has indicated requirement in respect of the experience for the existing life insurance agents and from open market candidates. In addition to that, the selection procedure has been also indicated in detail and in the selection procedure it has been indicated that the written test of the open market candidates would be revolving around "test of reasoning and numerical ability". In addition to that, the selection procedure has been also indicated in detail and in the selection procedure it has been indicated that the written test of the open market candidates would be revolving around "test of reasoning and numerical ability". It provided that the written test would be revolving around "Elements of Insurance and Marketing of Insurance" in context with the candidates from agents category. It means that for the purpose of giving procedural weightage the LIC and respondents 1, 2, 3 provided the paper for written examination which was to test reasoning and numerical ability of the candidates from open market and it was examining the candidates of elements of Insurance and Marketing of Insurance for the candidates from agents category. It indirectly means that the LIC and respondents 1, 2, 3 gave appropriate weightage to the experience acquired by the agents while doing the service as agents for LIC. They were provided all necessary opportunity of showing their performance to the satisfaction of the selection committee and appointing authority. This Court finds substance in the submission advanced on behalf of petitioner by Shri Mathur that the candidates coming from the quota of agents, have been placed at a lower cadre in comparison of the candidates coming from open market. It was expected from the candidates from open market that they should have experience of at least of two years in a reputed organisation and nothing more. However, for the candidates coming from the category of agents, it was expected that they should have at least five years experience as agent and in addition to that, they should have completed a Net First Years Premium of not less than Rs. 1,35,000/- during the immediately preceding 5 agency years and not less than Rs. 22,000/- on 20 lives in each of any 3 of these 5 agency years. In addition to that it was provided that the candidates coming from open market should have sales experience in any sales organisation desirable but not essential. In comparison to this, the criteria was indicated in context with the agents quota candidates that they should have not less than four years experience as an agent. They should have completed a Net First Years Premium of not less than Rs. 22,000/- of 20 lives per year in any of immediately 4 preceding agency years. In comparison to this, the criteria was indicated in context with the agents quota candidates that they should have not less than four years experience as an agent. They should have completed a Net First Years Premium of not less than Rs. 22,000/- of 20 lives per year in any of immediately 4 preceding agency years. of course, these two cadres are pertaining to candidates coming from rural areas. However, there has been a difference of expectation of qualification from candidates coming from urban area more than candidates coming from rural areas. Allcategories demonstrate that candidates coming from agents quota, have been placed at lower cadre in comparison to the candidates from open markets. This leads to next conclusion that a reasonable categorisation has been done by respondents 1, 2, 3 and LIC by its Employment Notice. When it was done and both the applicants were invited for appointment to the post in question, they were precluded from going back. They were estopped from contending otherwise and that leads next aspect of the matter which is touching the prayer made by the petitioner in prayer clause and which indicates the assailing the appointment order by which respondent 4 has been appointed to the said post. Record shows that petitioner secured more marks than respondent 4 in written test as well as in interview. The Selection Committee made recommendations in a very clever and reasonable way. It did not recommend any of them; however placed the performances of these two candidates before the Zonal Manager, LIC, Bhopal-Resp.2., who was to act in accordance with the recommendation of Selection Committee or atleast he would accept any to act against or inconsistent with the data provided to him. When the entire Selection process is categorised, nothing was left with Resp.2 -Zonal Manager for deviating from data which is available for him to take final decision for appointing a suitable candidate. When that was so, the action of appointing authority of appointment, should have been proper, consistent with it, fair and naturally result of it. But that is not so. It is inconsistent with data which was provided by Selection Committee to him. What is not consistent with the available data, what is not fair in context with available data, would not only be unjust but would be capricious. What is not fair, what is not just, would be capricious and arbitrary. But that is not so. It is inconsistent with data which was provided by Selection Committee to him. What is not consistent with the available data, what is not fair in context with available data, would not only be unjust but would be capricious. What is not fair, what is not just, would be capricious and arbitrary. and when that is so, this court would be left with no alternative but to quash said appointment and to issue Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1, 2, 3 to appoint petitioner in place of Respondent No. 4 to the post of Apprentice Development Officer.