ORDER : Vivek Agarwal, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 26.11.2007 vide which panel which was formed empaneling the candidates for appointment to the posts in Class IV cadre for the Gwalior Division in terms of employment notice dated 24.4.2000 was scraped. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2000 an employment notice was issued by the respondents/Life Insurance Corporation of India and in terms of the employment notice dated 24.4.2000 petitioner being qualified candidate had applied for class IV post. It is also an admitted position that petitioner's name was placed in the select list at serial No.6 under category: General (And Others) with roll No.28. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after scraping of this employment notice vide impugned order dated 26.11.2007, two persons whose names appear in the panel as is contained in Annexure VI dated 3.8.2000 were given appointment, namely one Shri Narayan Das whose name appears at serial No.5 above the petitioner and who admittedly belonged to SC category and another Maharaj Singh from the OBC category as has been admitted by the respondents in para 8 of their return. Petitioner’s grievance is that he should also have been given similar treatment and should have been appointed treating him at par with Narayan Das and Maharaj Singh and this act of the respondents in not giving him appointment is arbitrary and illegal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in terms of the order dated 24.6.2011 petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination which was held by the Life Insurance Corporation of India on 26.6.2011, and therefore, he is entitled for declaration of his result in terms of the order dated 23.9.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in terms of the order dated 24.6.2011 petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination which was held by the Life Insurance Corporation of India on 26.6.2011, and therefore, he is entitled for declaration of his result in terms of the order dated 23.9.2013. Thus, petitioner has raised twin grounds; (1) that his name though continued in the panel for long seven years, but he has been arbitrarily denied appointment by scrapping the said panel, whereas some other persons were admittedly granted appointment in terms of that panel even after scrapping of the said panel and (2) since petitioner was permitted to participate in the limited departmental examination which was conducted on 26.6.2011, therefore, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 23.9.2013, in view of the order of the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P. No.10090/2011, his result should be declared and he should be given appointment if he is found to have qualified in the said examination which was conducted on 26.6.2011. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/LIC submits that as far as petitioner's first contention regarding scrapping of the panel is concerned, that was scrapped in the light of the fact that in the case of LIC v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar as reported in AIR 1994 SC 2148 , the Supreme Court had held that Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 framed under the power confirmed by Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 empowers the Corporation to issue instructions and such instructions issued under Regulation (4) of the above referred Regulations of 1960 are statutory in character. Thus, in terms of the amendment made in the year 2007, the life of a panel prepared under the aforesaid instructions has been curtailed to maximum period of two years and admittedly that panel was scrapped on account of the fact that life of the panel had expired in terms of the instructions issued in the year 2007. Thus, in terms of the amendment made in the year 2007, the life of a panel prepared under the aforesaid instructions has been curtailed to maximum period of two years and admittedly that panel was scrapped on account of the fact that life of the panel had expired in terms of the instructions issued in the year 2007. Learned counsel for the LIC also submits that it is apparent from para 8 of the return filed on behalf of the LIC that two persons whose names have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner namely Narayan Das and Maharaj Singh were given appointment in terms of the letter issued by the Zonal Office dated 20th November, 2007, whereas the panel was scrapped on 26.11.2007. It is further submitted that in Annexure P/6 itself it is mentioned in note that candidates in the above panel will be offered appointment subject to availability of the vacancies. Thus, it is seen that as far as Maharaj Singh is concerned, since he belongs to OBC category, there is no parity with the petitioner. As far as Narayan Das is concerned, his name appears above that of the petitioner and it is not the case of the petitioner that the vacancies were available prior to scrapping of panel vide impugned order dated 26.11.2007 and yet petitioner was not given appointment. As far as name of Narayan Das is concerned, since Zonal Officer had decided to give him appointment as per the vacancy which had accrued prior to scrapping of the panel, no fault can be attributed to issuance of appointment order in favour of Narayan Das in terms of the communication of the Zonal Office dated 20.11.07 which is prior to the date of scrapping of the panel. Thus, on this ground that somebody was granted appointment, petitioner cannot claim negative party, specially when petitioner has failed to point out that there existed a vacancy prior to scrapping of the panel, yet he was denied appointment on the post of class IV cadre. 5. Thus, on this ground that somebody was granted appointment, petitioner cannot claim negative party, specially when petitioner has failed to point out that there existed a vacancy prior to scrapping of the panel, yet he was denied appointment on the post of class IV cadre. 5. As per far as petitioner's second limb of argument that he was permitted to participate in the limited departmental examination which was conducted on 26.6.2011 is concerned, learned counsel for the LIC has placed reliance on the order of the Supreme Court dated 18th January, 2011 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.953/-968 of 2005 which clearly demonstrates that counsel appearing for the LIC had placed an affidavit before the Supreme Court in which it was mentioned that as a one time measure scheme has been formulated under which all eligible temporary class IV employees who had put in 5 years of service so also the open market candidates, who had taken the examination for recruitment as Class IV employees in the year 1996 were decided to be given a chance of absorption on the basis of limited departmental examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that petitioner had neither completed five years of service in the LIC as a temporary employee nor he was a candidate in the recruitment which had taken place in the year 1996. Therefore, this limited departmental examination was not meant for the petitioner and if he was permitted to participate in the said limited departmental examination on the strength of the orders of this Court, then it will not create any equitable right in his favour. One more thing is evident from the affidavit filed by the LIC on 15.9.2014 that the order dated 23.9.2013 was passed under a mistaken notion inasmuch as W.P.No.10090/2011 as was filed before the Principal Seat of this Court was filed by two persons namely Amitabh Kumar Dubey and one Shri Jitendra Kumar Nagesh. Admittedly, Jitendra Kumar Nagesh had a different case than Shri Abhitabh inasmuch as he had already put in five years of temporary service, and therefore, the High Court at Jabalpur had permitted the LIC to declare the results of Jitendra as he was eligible candidate to participate in the limited departmental examination, therefore, parity could not have been claimed by the petitioner with Jitendra inasmuch as admittedly petitioner had not put in any service in any capacity in the LIC. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of The Zonal Manager & Anr. v. J.Sudha delivered on 26th October, 2010 in W.A.(MD)No.757/2008 and connected Writ Appeal wherein the challenge was to the orders of learned Single Judge who had quashed the notification scrapping the empanelment of the candidates for appointment to the post of Class III category in the LIC Division Tirunelveli. In that case, as is borne out from para 14, it is apparent that the persons who were kept in the panel prepared in the year 1993 were appointed in leave vacancies till the year 2000, therefore, the High Court of Madras held that though merely inclusion of their names in the empanelled list did not confer any indefeasible right. But when the panel was kept alive for 14 years and when the respondents were offered employment in the leave vacancies as and when the need arose, naturally, it has created a legitimate expectation in the minds of the respondents for being considered for the regular appointment. In such view of the matter, Madras High Court held that the action of the Corporation in scrapping of the panel was not justified. In the present case, this is not the situation inasmuch as it is not the case of the petitioner that he was offered employment in leave vacancies as per the need of the LIC during the period when the panel was alive. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Jitendra Narendrabhai Surti v. Union of India and others decided on 6th May, 2010 in Special Civil Application No.5700/2010 wherein the challenge was to the decision of the learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court in refusing to quash and set aside the public notice dated 26.7.2007 cancelling the select list qua all those candidates who were not offered appointment including the petitioner. The Division Bench upheld that order of the learned Single Bench and dismissed the petition. Again this decision does not support the case of the petitioner. 8. The Division Bench upheld that order of the learned Single Bench and dismissed the petition. Again this decision does not support the case of the petitioner. 8. As the last limb of his persuasive arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure B which is an advertisement issued on 20th May, 2011 and the examination dated 26.6.2011 was conducted in the light of the said advertisement. He submits that all those candidates who had filed a case in the Court were also permitted to take part in the recruitment for which examination was conducted on 26.6.2011. He submits that all those candidates who had filed a case in the Court were also permitted to take part in the recruitment for which examination was conducted on 26.6.2011. To appreciate this argument, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant clauses of the said advertisement which are as under :- “ ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky;] Hkkjr esa nhokuh vihy la0 953&968& Jh Mh0oh0 vfuG dqekj ,oa vU; cuke Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ij ikfjr vius vkns'k fnukad 18-01-2011 }kjk ;g funsZf'kr fd;k gS fd v& Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ,deq'r HkrhZ vfHk;ku }kjk mu leLr vLFkk;h prqFkZJs.kh deZpkfj;ksa dks] tks fnukad 18-01-2011 dks ikap o"kksZa ls vf/kd ls Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe esa dk;Zjr gS vkSj tks Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe esa vius izos'k dh frfFk dks U;wure ;ksX; vgZrk ,oa mez j[krs gks] dh fu;qfDr vfxze ?kksf"kr lhfer ikB~;dze ds rgr LFkkuh; Hkk"kk esa lfefr fyf[kr ijh{kk }kjk djsaA fGf[kr ijh{kk esa lQy mEehnokjksa dks lk{kkRdkj ds fG, cqGk;k tk;sxkA lk{kkRdkj esa tks mEehnokj lQG gksaxs mudh izkjafHkd fu;qfDr lac) {ks=ksa esa dgh Hkh dh tk ldsxhA c& nhokuh vihy la0 953&968 ds tks izfroknh [kqGs cktkj ds mEehnokj gS] tks o"kZ 1996 esa fuxe ds gSnjkckn ,oa fldUnjkckn eaMGksa ds prqFkZ oxhZ; deZpkfj;ksa dh HkrhZ gsrq rRdkGhu fGf[kr ijh{kk esa 'kkfeG gq, vkSj lQG ?kksf"kr fd;s x;s] mUgsa Hkh vLFkk;h deZpkfj;ksa ;Fkk vij of.kZr v ds lax lk{kkRdkj ds fy, cqGk;k tk,xkA muesa ls tks mEehnokj lk{kkRdkj esa lQG ?kksf"kr fd;s tk;sxsa] mUgsa fu;qfDr iznku dh tk;sxhA 1- Hkkjr ds ekuuh; mPpre U;k;kG; ds mi;qZDr vkns'kksa ds vuqikyu esa Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe prqFkZ oxhZ; Js.kh ds mu lHkh ;ksX; vLFkk;h deZpkfj;ksa dks] tks mij of.kZr v esa gS] ds vkosnu dks lg"kZ vkeaf=r djrk gSA Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ds oSls lHkh vLFkk;h prqFkZ oxhZ; deZpkjh tks fnukad 18-01-2011 dks ikap o"kksZa ls vf/kd ls dk;Zjr gS fuxe esa izos'k ds le; tks Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe }kjk fu/kkZfjr blds rRdkGhu HkrhZ fu;eksa vuqns'kksa ds vuqdqy U;wure ;ksX; vgZrk uoh d{kk ikl ,oa mez j[krsa gks] vkosnu djus ds ;ksX; gSA mijh mez lhek esa NwV fu;ekuqlkj iz;ksT; gksxkA oSls ;ksX; mEehnokj ftUgksaus vnkGr esa eqdnek nk;j fd;k gS rFkk ftuds ekeGs vnkyr esa dkQh le; ls fopkjk/khu gS] os Hkh vkosnu dj ldrs gSA bu mEehnokjksa dks vkosnu i= Hkjrs le; vius eqdnesa ds fooj.k ,oa fLFkfr dh lwpuk nsuh gSA ” After perusal of the said conditions as enumerated above, it is apparent that under Clause A candidates have been permitted who had put in five years or more of temporary class IV engagement in LIC as on 18.1.2011 subject to fulfilling other conditions of the eligibility. Under Clause B those candidates who were party to civil appeal Nos.953-968 and who had participated in the written examination conducted by the Hyderabad and Sikandarabad Division of the LIC in the year 1996 and who were declared to be successful in the written examination were allowed to participate in the selection process in terms of the said advertisement. Thereafter, there is a clarification that all those temporary class IV employees who had put in five years of service or more as on 18.1.2011 and who possessed minimum education qualification and such eligible employees who have filed a case in the Court of law and their cases are pending for long can apply. Here word "such" is the equivalent to Hindi word oSls and this terminology is to be interpreted in terms of Clause A and B of the advertisement and not in isolation, and therefore, in the opinion of this Court petitioner merely on account of the fact that he has filed the writ petition in the year 2008 will not fall in the category of candidates who had been held eligible to participate in the selection process on account of pendency of their Court cases. Thus, this clause will also be of no help to the petitioner. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the petition and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed.