L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions relates to recruitment to the posts of Sub-Staff in Life Insurance corporation (for short the Corporation ). Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. ( 2 ) THE Corporation has initiated steps for recruitment to the post of Sub-Staff (Peons) in the A. P. Division in the year 1991. Notification, inviting applications and stipulating the conditions, etc. , was issued. The recruitment process comprised of holding of written test and conducting interviews. The written test was conducted to the applicants who responded to the Notification. However, even before the interviews could be held, the said Notification was withdrawn. To meet the exigencies of service, several persons were appointed on temporary basis. ( 3 ) ON 17-7-1996, the Corporation issued a Notification, proposing to conduct recruitment to the said posts. 400 vacancies were notified and about 40,000 candidates responded to the same. Written test was conducted on 29-12-1996 and interviews were held during May and June, 1998 for the eligible candidates. At that stage, writ petitions came to be filed by the Sub-Staff appointed on temporary basis, seeking regularsiation of their services. On account of this and other allied reasons, further steps in the recruitment process pursuant to the Notification dated 17-7-1996 could not be taken. ( 4 ) W. P. No. 429/97 was filed by some of the temporary employees seeking regularization of their services as Sub-Staff. The same was dismissed by this Court on 29-12-1997. As many as 99 of such temporary employees filed W. P. No. 23458/ 98 for the relief of regularization of their services. That writ petition was also dismissed on 3-11-1998. They preferred w. A. No. 1091 of 1999. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ appeal directing the Corporation to frame a Scheme for regularization of the services of the temporary employees. The Corporation took the matter to the Hon ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 2000. At this juncture, it needs to be observed that a similar question arose in Tamilnadu Division and the matter came before the Hon ble supreme Court in Prabhavati v. LIC of india, 1993 (4) SCT 343 (SC ). The Corporation took the matter to the Hon ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 2000. At this juncture, it needs to be observed that a similar question arose in Tamilnadu Division and the matter came before the Hon ble supreme Court in Prabhavati v. LIC of india, 1993 (4) SCT 343 (SC ). Through its order dated 20-3-1992, the Hon ble Supreme court framed the following Scheme and directed the Corporation to follow the same in the matter of regularization of such employees:"scheme:- (A) All those temporary employees who have worked for 85 days in any two consecutive calendar years with the Life insurance Corporation between 20th May, 1958 up till date and who conformed to the required eligibility criteria for regular recruitment on the dates of their initial temporary appointment will be permitted to* compete for the next regular recruitment to be made by the Life insurance Corporation after the regular recruitment for these posts currently schedule for November, 1992; (b) These candidates will be considered on their merits with all other candidates who may apply for such appointments, including those from the open market. (c) These candidates will be given an age relaxation for applying for regular recruitment provided that they were eligible on the date of their first temporary appointment for securing regular appointment with the Life insurance Corporation. (d) If these candidates are otherwise eligible, they can apply for regular recruitment in the normal course. "in Civil Appeal No. 2104/2000, the Hon ble supreme Court took note of the Scheme framed by it in Prabhavathi s case (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme ) and, through order dated 20-1-2002, held that the direction given by this Court in WA no. 1091/99 was incompatible. A further direction was issued to implement that scheme in the Andhra Pradesh Division also. ( 5 ) W. P. Nos. 24249 of 1999, 1615, 3293, 4108, 12261 of 2002 are filed by some of the fresh applicants, who responded to the notification dated 17-7-1996. They claimed the relief in the form of a direction to declare the results of their performance in the written test and interview and issue orders of appointment depending on the results. W. P. No. 20504/99 is filed by some of the temporary employees seeking the same relief as was granted to the appellants in W. A. No. 1091/99. They claimed the relief in the form of a direction to declare the results of their performance in the written test and interview and issue orders of appointment depending on the results. W. P. No. 20504/99 is filed by some of the temporary employees seeking the same relief as was granted to the appellants in W. A. No. 1091/99. W. P. No. 6630/92 is filed by similar category of persons viz. , temporary employees, seeking a direction to the Corporation to regularise their services in terms of the orders of the Hon ble supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2104/ 2000 dated 20-1-2002. ( 6 ) SRI K. S. Murthy, Sri M. Vijay kumar, Sri A. V. Krishna Rao and Sri p. G. S. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/fresh applicants submit that the Corporation has issued notification way back in the year 1996 and has conducted written test as well as interviews as provided for therein and that there was absolutely no justification to withhold the process at this stage. They submit that all the fresh applicants are unemployed and they have been made to wait for more than 6 years from the date of notification on one pretext or the other. They submit that the appointment of various persons on temporary basis was contrary to Rules and such appointments did not confer any right upon the temporary employees. Placing reliance upon several judgments of the Hon ble supreme Court, they contend that such employees are not entitled for the relief of regularization. Their main stress is upon the relief of declaration of results and issuance of consequential orders of appointments to the fresh applicants. ( 7 ) SRI Ramesk Ranganathan, learned additional Advocate General, appearing for the temporary employees, submits that all the temporary employees before this Court held requisite qualifications and were appointed against vacancies. He submits that in view of the orders of the Hon ble supreme Court in Prabhavathi s case and civil Appeal No. 2104/2000, the Corporation is under obligation to consider the cases of temporary employees, including those who appeared in the written test, for appointment on regular basis duly relaxing the condition as to age. He submits that in view of the orders of the Hon ble supreme Court in Prabhavathi s case and civil Appeal No. 2104/2000, the Corporation is under obligation to consider the cases of temporary employees, including those who appeared in the written test, for appointment on regular basis duly relaxing the condition as to age. ( 8 ) SRI N. V. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Corporation, submits that the delay in recruitment process was on account of the various round of litigation initiated by the temporary employees. He submits that under the notification dated 17-7-1996, temporary employees were also permitted to appear and as a matter of fact majority of them availed that opportunity and, that being the situation, the question of conducting of separate written test and interview for temporary employees in terms of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in prabhavathi s case and Civil Appeal no. 2104 of 2000 does not arise. It is his contention that though the number of vacancies notified was 400, there are only 200 vacancies. Placing reliance upon several judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court, he too submits that the temporary employees are not entitled to be regularised as a matter of course. ( 9 ) THE reason for not proceeding with the recruitment for the posts of Sub- staff notified in the year 1991 is not forthcoming. It is the failure, reluctance or inability of the Corporation to proceed with the recruitment in the year 1991 that has necessitated the appointment of Sub-Staff on temporary basis. That, in turn, has created several hurdles in finalising the recruitment process, which was commenced with the notification dated 17-7-1996. On account of interim and final orders that came to be passed by this Court and the Hon ble supreme Court from time to time at the instance of the temporary employees, recruitment of candidates on the basis of written test and interview could not be proceeded with. There does not exist much opposition from any circle in the matter of grant of any relief to the fresh candidates. The nature of relief to be granted to them depends, much on the form and extent of relief that can be extended to the temporary employees. ( 10 ) W. P. No. 429/97, which was first in the series, filed by the temporary employees was dismissed. The nature of relief to be granted to them depends, much on the form and extent of relief that can be extended to the temporary employees. ( 10 ) W. P. No. 429/97, which was first in the series, filed by the temporary employees was dismissed. Similar writ petitions filed by about 100 temporary employees being W. P. No. 23498/99 was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. In W. A. No. 1091/1999 filed by them, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Corporation to frame a Scheme. A reading of the judgment in the said writ appeal discloses that the judgment of the hon ble Supreme Court in Prabhavathi s case does not appear to have been brought to its notice. Obviously, for that reason, in civil Appeal No. 2104/2000 filed against this writ appeal, the Hon ble Supreme Court took note of the Scheme and held that the same needs to be implemented as regards the present recruitment also. The following is the observation of the Hon ble Supreme court in Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 2000:"necessarily, therefore, the case of regularization of the employees of the corporation could be dealt with in accordance with the said Scheme and it would not be necessary to evolve a fresh scheme for a group of employees. Mr. Krishnamurthy further contended that E. Prabhavathi s case (supra) relates to the employees of Tamil nadu Division. But, it is not disputed that they are the employees of the Corporation. If the Corporation has evolved a Scheme assuming for the Tamil Nadu Division, then the same could be equally applicable to the employees of all Divisions in the country. That being the position, the scheme which has been approved and formed a part of the order of this Court dated 23-10-1992, should govern the case of these respondents who were writ petitioners before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. "with the orders of the Hon ble Supreme court in C. A. No. 2104/2000, the procedure to be adopted in the matter of regularization of temporary staff stands given a quietus. The Corporation is under obligation to follow the Scheme framed by the Hon ble Supreme court, which is extracted in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. "with the orders of the Hon ble Supreme court in C. A. No. 2104/2000, the procedure to be adopted in the matter of regularization of temporary staff stands given a quietus. The Corporation is under obligation to follow the Scheme framed by the Hon ble Supreme court, which is extracted in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. ( 11 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the corporation submits that inasmuch as the majority of the temporary employees have appeared in the written test conducted in pursuance of the notification dated 17-7-1996, the Scheme stands implemented in respect of the temporary staff. According to him, no further steps need to be taken in this regard. ( 12 ) SRI Ramesh Ranganathan, the learned Addl. Advocate General, on the other hand, submits that the notification of 1996 did not incorporate the conditions laid down in the scheme and that the appearance, if any, of the temporary employees was independent of and apart from the Scheme framed by the Supreme Court. He submits that the Corporation is under obligation to take steps to implement the Scheme. ( 13 ) THE Scheme framed by the supreme Court provides for permission being accorded to the temporary employees who have worked for 85 days in any two consecutive calendar years with the corporation and who conform to the eligibility criteria; to compete in the regular recruitment along with the other candidates. Their consideration is to be on merit, along with other fresh applicants. The temporary employees are to be extended relaxation of age, if they were within the age limit as on the date of their initial appointment. ( 14 ) TO consider the question as to whether the temporary employees are still entitled for the benefit of the Scheme, it needs to be seen as to whether it was incorporated in the notification dated 17-7-1996. The notification does not refer to the scheme at all. It is true that the notification permits the persons who have been appointed on or after 20th June, 1993 and who have worked for 85 days in a financial year to compete in the written test, if they satisfy the other conditions of eligibility with due relaxation of the age limit. All the petitioners in W. P. No. 6630/2002 were appointed prior to 1993. There were several such candidates. All the petitioners in W. P. No. 6630/2002 were appointed prior to 1993. There were several such candidates. Once the notification specifically debarred those who were appointed on temporary basis prior to 1993 from participating in the recruitment process, it cannot be said that the Scheme was implemented by the Corporation. The sanctity of the date 20th June, 1993 is not explained. ( 15 ) IF really the Corporation was of the view that in view of the permission accorded to the temporary employees to apply in response to notification dated 17-7-1996, nothing prevented it to plead the same before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2104/ 2000. The Supreme Court specifically directed the Corporation to implement the Scheme for the temporary employees. There is no change of circumstances, ever since the orders of the supreme Court. The Corporation, in a way, would flout the orders of the Supreme Court, if it refuses to implement the Scheme. ( 16 ) EVEN assuming that certain candidates appointed before that date were permitted to appear in the written test, that factor by itself does not absolve the corporation of its obligation to implement the Scheme. If at all any one is to be blamed for this uncertain state of affairs, it is squarely the Corporation, and none else. Hardly there existed any consistency, coherence or uniformity in the whole process. Across the Bar, it is stated that the recruitment process was entrusted to a professional agency. For a Corporation of such a magnitude with so much of infrastructure and wherewithal at its disposal, it should not have taken so long to conclude the recruitment process. Having shelved it, they resorted to temporary appointment, which in turn, gave rise to multifarious problems. The unemployed became sandwiched in the process and were subjected to unending waiting. The recruitment process can no longer be kept in hibernation. ( 17 ) SO far as the temporary staff is concerned, a peculiar situation has emerged, in that, those who are enthusiastic, have appeared in the written test, and those who expected a different type of absorption, remained outside the selection process. The scheme was not implemented in its letter and spirit. Those who participated in the recruitment process and who were permitted to appear in that should not be penalised for the same. The scheme was not implemented in its letter and spirit. Those who participated in the recruitment process and who were permitted to appear in that should not be penalised for the same. ( 18 ) UNDER the Scheme, the temporary employees are required to compete with fresh candidates also. In this case, but for the non-implementation of the Scheme under the notification dated 7-6-1996, all the temporary employees would have been eligible to, appear and were entitled to compete with fresh candidates. This Court feels that as and when written test and interview contemplated under the Scheme is to be held, the temporary employees are required to compete with the freshers. To subject the temporary employees to compete with the eligible candidates as of now may result in so many complications. ( 19 ) A putative situation obtaining as on 17-6-1996 needs to be taken into account, even for holding a fresh test in terms of the scheme framed by the Supreme Court in prabhavathi s case. Some of the freshers, who have appeared in 1996, may have become over-aged also. But for the lapses indicated above, the chances of those who are successful in the written test held in december, 1996 would not have been marred to the extent of vacancies equivalent to the number of eligible temporary employees. To permit all the applicants pursuant to the notification dated 17-7-1996 to appear in the proposed examination may also lead to several incongruities. A balance has to be struck between these conflicting situations. This Court is, therefore, of the view that a just and fair outcome can be expected if a fresh written test and interview is directed to be held restricting the appearance to unsuccessful temporary employees and such of the fresh candidates who have been found eligible to be interviewed, but could not be selected. This Court is, therefore, of the view that a just and fair outcome can be expected if a fresh written test and interview is directed to be held restricting the appearance to unsuccessful temporary employees and such of the fresh candidates who have been found eligible to be interviewed, but could not be selected. ( 20 ) THE writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the following directions: (a) The Corporation shall declare the results of the candidates who have been interviewed in the recruitment process; (b) The vacancies representing the number of eligible temporary employees shall be kept apart and remaining vacancies shall be filled by unsuccessful fresh applicants; (c) So far as the vacancies earmarked for temporary employees are concerned, such of those temporary employees who are successful in the written test and interview shall be considered for appointment against such vacancies; and (d) As regards the balance of vacancies earmarked for temporary employees, the Corporation shall hold written test and interview for temporary employees as well as those fresh candidates who are found to be eligible to be interviewed under the 1996 recruitment and the appointments shall be on the basis of relative merit among all the candidates; (e) The steps under (a) and (b) shall be taken within two months from today and those under (c) and (d) shall be taken within 4 months from today; (f) There shall be no order as to costs.