JUDGMENT

BHAGWATI, J. :— The appellant was appointed as a Statistical Officer on 20th Feb. 1961 and he was confirmed in that position on 15th Oct. 1966. It appears that sometime thereafter on 22nd Feb. 1967 he was appointed to the post of Chief Inspector of Shops and he worked in that capacity until 1st Jan. 1968 when he was appointed Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer by the Government of Haryana. It is clear from the record that the appellant was transferred from the post the Chief Inspector of Shops to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer since the Government had taken a decision that the posts of Statistical Officer and labour-cum-Conciliation Officer should be treated as inter-changeable, but unfortunately for the appellant, the Punjab Labour Service (Class I & II) Rules 1955 which were statutory rules made in exercise of the power conferred under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, were not amended in conformity with this decision. The appellant continued in the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer up to 28th April, 1977 when an order was passed by the Government reverting him to the post of Statistical Officer. The ground on which the order of reversion appeared to be based was that the appellant was not qualified to be appointed as a Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer under the Punjab Labour Service (Class I and II) Rules 1955 because he did not possess one of the minimum qualifications required under Rule 4 cl. (1), namely, that he should have experience of at least five years in the working of Labour laws as Labour Inspector, Deputy Chief Inspector of Shops or Wage Inspector. The appellant challenged the order of reversion by filing a petition in the High Court. The petition was dismissed by a single Judge and on appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court took the same view and rejected the appeal in limine. The appellant thereupon brought the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.

2. It is clear on a plain reading of sub-cl. (1) of R. 4 of the Punjab Labour Service (Class I & II) Rules 1955 that no person can be appointed as Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer unless he possesses the educational and other qualifications mentioned in that clause. The minimum educational and other qualifications required by a candidate in order to be eligible to be appointed as Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer are that, in the first instance, he must be a graduate of a recognised university preferably in one of the social sciences such as Economics, Commerce, Sociology or Law; secondly, he must have five years experience of the working of Labour laws as Labour Inspector, Deputy Chief Inspector of Shops or Wage Inspector and lastly, he must hold a diploma in Social Welfare of a recognised university or institution. The appellant was undoubtedly a graduate of a recognised university in Economics and he also held diploma in Social Welfare of a recognised university but admittedly he did not have five years experience in the field of Labour Laws as Labour Inspector or Deputy Chief Inspector of Shops or Wage Inspector. He was a Statistical Officer for about six years and thereafter for a period of about ten months he held the post of Chief Inspector of Shops. His experience of the working of labour laws as Chief Inspector of Shops which is a post higher than the Deputy Chief Inspector of Shops was, therefore, limited only to a period of about ten months and he did not satisfy the requirement of five years experience. He was in the circumstances, ineligible to be appointed as Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer under R. 4 cl. (1). But the argument was that by reason of cl. (2) of R. 4 the minimum educational and other qualifications set out in sub-cl. (1) were applicable only to a candidate who was appointed by promotion and these qualifications could not possibly appeal in case of direct recruitment or transfer. Now it is true that Cl. (2) of R. 4 deals with a case of recruitment by promotion and it requires in so