Fulfilling minimum service requirements creates no indefeasible right to cadre conversion absent proven extenuating circumstances.

The appellant was appointed as a Development Officer Grade-II with the respondent-corporation on August 9, 1998, under the statutory General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 ("the Scheme")

After being promoted to Grade-I in 2002, the appellant consistently failed to meet the "cost ratio" targets stipulated under Clause 11 of the Scheme starting from the year 2010-11

Despite salary reductions to the minimum basic pay in 2022 and a formal warning issued on August 13, 2023, the appellant’s cost ratio remained significantly above the 8% limit (reaching as high as 219.41% in 2022-23)

Consequently, a notice of termination was issued on September 9, 2024

The appellant’s appeal and request for conversion to clerical staff under Clause 11(8) were rejected by the Competent Authority on August 12, 2025

The appellant challenged these orders via a writ petition, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on February 9, 2026

The present intra-court appeal is against that dismissal.

1. Whether the notice of termination and the rejection of the appeal were issued by the Competent Authority as mandated by Clauses 11(6) and 11(8) of the Scheme

2. Whether the appellant had an indefeasible right to be appointed to the clerical cadre under Clause 11(8) upon fulfilling the criteria of 15 years of service

The court primarily applied the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976, framed under Section 16(1)(g) of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972

Clause 11(6) stipulates that termination for failing to meet cost limits must be executed by an officer not below the rank of Assistant General Manager after 30 days' notice

Clause 11(8) provides a discretionary provision for appointing a Development Officer to clerical staff, subject to suitability, age (45-55 years), length of service (15 years), or extenuating circumstances like illness, as decided by the Chairman

The court also applied the principle that judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to grounds of mala fides or procedural impropriety when the authority has exercised discretion based on the Scheme's criteria

The Court observed that the appellant’s persistent failure to achieve the stipulated cost ratio warranted termination under the "cost control" framework of the Scheme

Regarding the challenge to the authority's competence, the Court found that while the Regional Manager communicated the decisions, the records indicated that the decisions themselves were taken by the "Competent Authority" as required by Clause 11(6)

Addressing the request for cadre conversion, the Court held that Clause 11(8) does not grant an automatic or "indefeasible right" to a clerical post

The Competent Authority had reviewed the appellant’s medical documents and concluded that no "extenuating circumstances" (such as injury or disablement) existed to justify the conversion

The Court emphasized that such discretionary administrative conclusions are generally beyond the scope of judicial review unless mala fides is proven, which was not the case here

It held that the termination was procedurally sound under Clause 11(6) and that the rejection of the cadre conversion request under Clause 11(8) was a valid exercise of administrative discretion

The Court concluded that the appellant failed to establish any legal or jurisdictional error in the termination of his services or the refusal to appoint him to the clerical cadre

No orders as to costs were made