JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In this intra-court appeal, the assail is to the order dated 29.7.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 7018 of 2009 whereby the learned Single Judge has held thus: "Here, in my view, is a question of survival of the petitioner as against hassles for a corporate giant like L.I.C. These two conflicting interest have to be balanced. The answer can only be in one direction, specially, keeping in view the scarcity of employment in these days. Petitioner, it is not disputed, had duly qualified on merit, a position for OBC still remains unfilled. The only thing that was that the petitioner could not be turned up for the medical test and is now told that as the training programme is also over nothing can be done. In my view, these special facts call for a special treatment. It is not that the appointment process has to be reopened or upset. The in-house theoretical training is only of two weeks apart from practical job exposure of about two months compared to the loss which this petitioner never would suffer. The inconvenience (practical hassles) to the corporate giant like L.I.C. would be minimal. Thus, balancing the two as a Court of equity as well, this Court directs L.I.C. to accept the joining of the petitioner, on petitioner being medically qualified and would be treated as a regularly selected Apprentice Development Officer, though his seniority would reckoned from the date of his present joining." 3. Be it noted, in course of hearing on 18.2.2010 when debate went on, Mr.Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner fairly stated that he really could defend the order passed by the learned Single Judge and we must say the statement made by him was absolutely correct. However, at that juncture, we had requested Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel whether the respondent-writ petitioner could be appointed in the post in question. 4. Mr. However, at that juncture, we had requested Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel whether the respondent-writ petitioner could be appointed in the post in question. 4. Mr. Singh has obtained instructions from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and stated that the respondent-writ petitioner shall be given a fresh appointment in the post of Apprentice Development Officer (A.D.O.) alongwith appointees of the next batch and his place of posting would be within the East Central Zone. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent- writ petitioner has no objection for the same. It is further agreed that the appointment shall be given subject to medical fitness. We may further hasten to clarify as the present arrangement has been done with the consent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the same should never be treated as a precedent. 5. Before parting with the case, we must put our unhesitant appreciation for the efforts made by Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel as a consequence of which a person seeking appointment has been given appointment and would be in a position to sustain the family. We must also appreciate the stand put forth by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. 6. In the result, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is disposed of on the basis of concession recorded hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.