Case Law Details
1. Claiming a writ in the nature of quo warranto, Shri Santosh Sahu, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating inter alia that the appointment of respondent No. 3 Shri Jiten Kumar as Labour Commissioner is contrary to the statutory provisions, and for his consequent removal from the post of Labour Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur.
2. The above-stated challenge has been made by the petitioner in the following factual back drop: —
3. Petitioner Shri Santosh Sahu claiming to be a social worker and interested to ensure transparency in the administration of larger public interest and to see that only the statutorily eligible persons are appointed on the statutory posts in order to provide good governance to the people of the State, has filed this writ petition stating inter alia that the post of Labour Commissioner is a statutory post under Section 3(1) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and recruitment to the post of Labour Commissioner is governed by the rules framed by the Governor namely the Chhattisgarh Labour (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985 (for short ‘the Rules, 1985’). It was further pleaded that the appointment of Labour Commissioner has to be made in accordance with Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules, 1985 which is appointment by transfer as provided in Schedule II enacted under Rule 6, as the post of Labour Commissioner has to be filled by transfer of persons from other services i.e. by IAS Officer. Even under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1985 i.e. Conditions of eligibility for promotion / transfer, promotion on the post of Labour Commissioner has to be made by IAS Officer. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 3 is a member of Indian Forest Service, he is not a member of Indian Administrative Service. It has also been pleaded that the appointment of respondent No. 3 on the post of Labour Commissioner also runs contrary to Rules 8 and 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 (for short ‘the Cadre Rules’). Since the post of Labour Commissioner is a cadre post duly notified by the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 2010 and the post of Labour Commissioner being the cadre post, it has to be filled only by the cadre officer i.e. the member of Indian Administrative Service and therefore the appointment of respondent No.3 on the post of Labour Commissioner, being contrary to the statutory rules, deserves to be declared as contrary to law and an appropriate writ in the nature of quo warranto be issued removing him from the post of Labour Commissioner.
4. Return has been filed by the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 opposing the writ petition stating inter alia that recruitment on the post of Labour Commissioner is governed by Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act, 1960’) and respondent No. 3 who is an officer of Indian Forest Service has been appointed on the said post. It was further pleaded that Schedules I and II provided under the Rules, 1985 nowhere provide eligibility criteria for the post of Labour Commissioner, and inclusion of IAS Officer is only a suitability prescribed for the post of Labour Commissioner, same is not the eligibility criteria as the Act, 1960 does not provide for eligibility criteria for appointment of a person to be the Labour Commissioner. The Legislature has left it to the wisdom of the State Government to appoint a person as Labour Commissioner on the basis of his suitability as such, there is no violation of statutory rules in the appointment of respondent No. 3, an officer of Indian Forest Service, to the post of Labour Commissioner nor he lacks eligibility for the post of Labour Commissioner and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Respondent No. 3 has filed a separate return in line with the plea raised by the State/respondents No. 1 and 2.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
