(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 5th May, 1999 (Annexure P-6) whereby 4th and 5th respondents have been promoted to the post of Labour Inspector and order dated 4.2.2008 (Annexure P-8) rejecting the representation of the petitioner.
(2.) At the outset I note that one of the grounds which has been urged for setting aside the appointment is that the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which meet and considered the case of the parties for promotion to the post of Labour Inspector, contains alterations in which the name of Raj Kumar respondent No.5 was inserted. It was pleaded, this change was made by respondent No.3, who was the Joint Labour Commissioner at that time and Member of this Departmental Promotion Committee. I called for and examined the record of the Departmental Promotion Committee and found that there interpolations were infact in the names for consideration which practice is to be deprecated and cannot be accepted under any circumstance. However, for the purposes of the present petition, I do not intend to say anything save and except that such practice reeks of a nonchalant attitude by the respondent-State and accommodating and considering persons at the eleventh hour itself constitutes a fact sufficient to invoke suspicion with respect to the validity of the proceedings. This is not the accepted manner for consideration. Such practice cannot but be deprecated. I would have adjudicated on the point further, but for the fact that I find that the petitioner herein was not eligible for consideration to the post in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (Annexure P- 3) since he was not in the zone of consideration.
(3.) According to the Rules, the post of Labour Inspector is a non-selection post which is to be filled in 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion failing which by direct recruitment. Clause- (10) and (11) of the Rules provides:- <!-- .style1 {font-family: Verdana} --> <FRM>JUDGEMENT_391_TLHPH0_2013_1.html</FRM>