T TAMILARASI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the arguments of Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 23081 and 23083 of 2007, Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W. P. No. 31714 of 2007 and Mr. G. Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader, assisted by Mrs. Bhavani Subbarayan, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the respondents and have perused the records.

(2.) THE three petitioners herein are working as the Inspectors of Labour in the Tamil Nadu Labour Service, which is formed by the Special Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. They are all aspirants for the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, which is the next higher post in the hierarchy of the Labour Department. The Special Rules for the Assistant Commissioner of Labour describes the following qualifications for being promoted to the said post.

(3.) IT is an admitted fact that the petitioners are all eligible to be considered for the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour and they possess the educational qualification and they are approved probationers in the present post of Inspector of Labour. The only controversy is with reference to the experience that is required as prescribed in the Special Rules. The Rules contemplate that the person, who aspires to get promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner should have the experience in all the three wings of the Department, viz. , 12 months service in the post of Labour Officer, 12 months service in the post of Inspector of Plantations and 12 months service in the post of Inspector of Labour.