KAMAL SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were appointed as Labour Inspectors on 23.(sic).1976, 7.6.1976 and 14.12.1977 respectively against regular Class III Posts. The promotion to the next higher post, i.e. of Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer is governed by Rules 4 and 5 of the Punjab Labour Service (Class I and II) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules) and the qualifications thereunder for the said promotion are as under: 4. Educational and Technical qualifications :-

(2.) In case of recruitment by promotion, the candidate who is to be promoted must possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the higher post to which promotion is to be made. 2. It is admitted case that the petitioners fulfil the above said qualifications. In the year 1981, two posts of Labour Officers fell vacant in the Department and the petitioners being the senior most Labour Inspectors were entitled to-be promoted to the said posts and the matter had infact been taken up for consideration by the Government. In the year 1982. one Sh. M.L. Malik, father of respondent No.2, who was working as Deputy Labour Commissioner, died, whereupon respondent No.2 was appointed as Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer vide order Annexure -P1 dated 27.1.1983 on compassionate ground. This action of respondent No. 1 has been challenged on the ground that respondent No.2 did not fulfil the qualifications laid down for the post. On' notice to the respondents, various replies have been put in on their behalf. It has been admitted that respondent No.2 did not possess the qualifications of 5 years' experience as a Labour Inspector and also did not have a diploma in Social Welfare as provided by the Statutory rules, but it is averred that the said appointment had been made by relaxing the condition with regard to experience and condition had also been imposed that respondent No.2 would have to pass the diploma course in Social Work/Labour Welfare during the period of probation, i.e. within 2/3 years from the date of appointment. It has further been pleaded in the reply that respondent No.2 had been granted employment on purely compassionate grounds as his father had died during the course of his service with the Haryana Government.

(3.) It has been argued by Sh. Ashish Grover, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the power of relaxation that had been exercised by the State Government could not have been exercised in the case of an individual as the power could be exercised only in respect of a class or category of persons and respondent No.2 being a solitary individual, could not have been granted this benefits.