KRISHAN KUMAR KHORANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who had joined service as an Inspector of Factories on October 3, 1958, filed the instant petition in the year 1980 with the grievance that his claim for promotion to the post of Senior Inspector of Factories was being illegally ingored on the ground that he did not fulfil the qualification of a degree in Mechanical Engineering. In the year 1983, the petitioner even amended the petition. With the amended petition, the petitioner produced the copy of the note on the file indicating the consideration of the claim of various persons for promotion to the post of Senior Inspector of Factories. In the amended petition, the claim as made out is primarily to the effect that he was not being considered for promotion on the ground that he did not possess the qualification of a degree in Mechanical Engineering. It is alleged that a degree in Mechanical Engineering has no relevance or nexus to be achieved to carry out the functions or statutory duties as enshrined in the Factories Act. The petitioner further alleges that the qualifications had been relaxed at the time of his appointment as Inspector of Factories and, therefore, the respondents could not have insisted upon his possessing a degree for purpose of promotion to the post of Senior Inspectors of Factories. The petitioner having been selected and appointed as an Inspector of Factories and the department having confirmed him on that post, they had to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Senior Inspector of Factories on the basis that he was eligible for promotion. Consequently, he prays for the issue of a writ a mandamus ''commanding upon the respondents to consider .......... the petitioner for promotion for promotion to the post of Senior Inspector of Factories.''

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the claim made by the petitioner has been controverted. However, it is not necessary to notice the averments in the written statement in detail in view of the fact that the note produced by the petitioner as Annexure P-3 with the petition contains the relevant information.

(3.) The solitary contention raised by Mr. R.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was ignored for purpose of promotion to the post of Senior Inspector or Factories only on the ground that he did not possess the qualification of a degree in mechanical engineering. Is it so ?