ROHAN SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 21-9-2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1587/2004 (s). The appellant was appointed vide order dated 16-6-1988 as Labour Officer in pursuance to the selection conducted by the M.P. Public Service Commission. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner and joined on the aforesaid post on 14-6-1996. In the gradation list, he was senior to the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner, vide order dated 1-1-2004. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of promotion in the writ petition on the ground that the respondent No. 3 was not eligible to be considered for promotion because he had not fulfilled the criteria of minimum period of service as Assistant Labour Commissioner for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the criteria for promotion to the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner was merit-cum-seniority and because the respondent No. 3 was more meritorious, hence, he had rightly been promoted. In regard to minimum officiation on the post, learned Single Judge has held that in accordance with rule 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Labour (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1985'), the Governor has a right to relax the condition and the condition of minimum officiation has been relaxed in the case of the respondent No. 3, hence, the order of promotion of the respondent No. 3 is in accordance with law.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that there is no order in regard to relaxation of minimum officiation period as required under the Rules, 1985, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law and the promotion of the respondent No. 3 was also contrary to the Recruitment Rules, 1985.

(3.) Contrary to this, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law and the relaxation has been granted in the case of the respondent No. 3 by the Competent Authority.