The court upheld the state's relaxation of recruitment rules for employees lacking qualifications, asserting that such measures can mitigate undue hardship while respecting public service needs.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - (i) The Petitioners herein are Labour Inspectors holding LL.B. Degrees and were appointed on 27.01.2015 in the Respondent No.3-Department, vide Reference No.74/SPSC/2015. They are aggrieved by the appointment of Respondents No.5 to 15 in the same Department, in February, 2013, in 11(eleven) vacant, sanctioned, Cadre posts of Labour Inspectors, sans LL.B. Degree required for appointment to the posts. They are also aggrieved by the promotion of Respondents No.7 and 14 on 22.09.2017 to the posts of Assistant Labour Commissioners in the Department by the State-Respondent No.4, vide Office Order No.3065/G/DOP, (Annexure P-3) without acquiring the requisite LL.B. Degree in the interregnum, as recommended by Respondent No.2-Sikkim Public Service Commission, vide its Recommendation dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure P-1).

(ii) Respondents No.5 to 11 were appointed initially as Labour Sub Inspectors on contractual basis in the year 2005. Respondents No.12 and 13 were appointed on ad hoc basis as Labour Inspectors in the year 2008 and Respondents No.14 and 15 also as Labour Inspectors in the year 2009.

(iii) The Respondents No.5 to 15 then came to be appointed as Labour Inspectors on 'temporary regular basis' in the Respondent No.3-Department, vide the impugned Office Order No.74/LD, dated 19.02.2013, based on the Order of Recommendation, of the Respondent No.2, dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure P-1). The appointments were made by relaxing the Roster Points and Educational Qualification, vide the impugned Notification No. No.54/GEN/DOP, dated 03.07.2012.

2.(i) The Petitioners allege that the appointments were made by the State-Respondents No.1, 3 and 4 by invoking the relaxation clauses in the Sikkim State Labour Service Rules , 2006, (for short, the 'Service Rules of 2006') and the Sikkim State Direct Recruitment (Special Provisions) Rules, 2008, (for short, the ' RECRUITMENT RULES of 2008') illegally and arbitrarily, in violation of Rule 12(a) of the Service Rules of 2006, which prescribes the minimum Educational Qualification of a Degree in Law viz. LL.B., for appointment to the said posts, which Respondents No.5 to 15 did not possess. That, the RECRUITMENT RULES of 2008, notified vide impugned Notification No.137/GEN/DOP, dated 08.07.2008, at Rule 3(3) inter alia, provides for relaxation in the eligibility criteria for Temporary Employees, which is also ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and Article 309 of the Constitution of India (for short, the 'Constitution'). That, due to non-advertisement of the posts of Labour Inspectors since the year 2000, the Petitioners were deprived of an opportunity to apply for it, adversely affecting their future prospects and promotion to higher grades.

(ii) The Petitioners claim to have been appointed as Labour Inspectors on merit, with due adherence to the recruitment procedure laid down by the Service Rules of 2006. That, although the Petitioners objected to the regularization of Respondents No.5 to 15 by a Representation dated, 12.10.2015, (Annexure P-7), on grounds that one statutory Act cannot supersede another and that the act of the State-Respondents was arbitrary, it was ignored. Hence, the prayers in the Writ Petition seeking amongst others, to set aside the appointment of Respondents No.5 to 15 from the Cadre posts of Labour Inspectors and quash the impugned Office Order (of Appointment) No.74/LD, dated 19.02.2013 as illegal; to declare the RECRUITMENT RULES of 2008 and the Notification, dated 03.07.2012, as ultra vires and quash both; and to direct the State- Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 not to supersede the