ORDER

1. Petitioners are working as Class III employees with the Madhya Pradesh Labour Welfare Board. It is their case that respondent No. 2 published the Madhya Pradesh Shram Kalyan Nidhi (Sanshodhan) (Mandal Karmchariyon Ki Bharti) Viniyam, 2021. The same pertains to recruitment of Class II and Class III employees through competitive exams and interview etc. They are specifically aggrieved by sub-rule 2 (ka) of Rule 4, which reads as follows :--

^ ^¼d½ f}rh; Js.kh&

¼1½ lgk;d dY;k.k vk;qDr&4 in ,oa ys[kkf/kdkjh &1 in dk in gS tks] f}rh; Js.kh dk gksxkA lgk;d dY;k.k vk;qDr inksa esa 25 izfr'kr lhèkh Hkjrh ls ,oa 75 izfr'kr inksUufr ls Hkjs tk,axs A tcfd ys[kkf/kdkjh dk in 'kklu }kjk ¼foÙk foHkkx½ ls izfrfu;qfDr ls Hkjk tkosxk A**

2. The same would indicate that the promotion to Class II from Class III for the post of Assistant Welfare Commissioner will be done by providing 75% promotion to in-service candidates and 25% through direct recruitment. It is a case of the petitioners that by promulgation of the said rules, the chances of the petitioners are vastly affected. That the earlier Rule of 1984 provided for 100% promotion from in-service candidates. The same has been reduced to 75%. Therefore, the instant petition was filed seeking for a writ of certiorari to declare the impugned gazette notification as ultra vires and consequential reliefs.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The sum and substance of the ground urged by the learned counsel is that by virtue of impugned notification the chances of the petitioners are affected.

4. On hearing the learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition. The prayer sought for by the petitioners is for a writ of certiorari to declare the impugned gazette notification as ultra vires and consequential reliefs.

5. Any enactment that is sought to be challenged, can be entertained only if the same is either arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational and whether the legislature has competence to make the law or it affects fundamental rights of the petitioners. We do not find that any of these exists in the instant case. The only plea of the petitioners is that their chances of promotion are affected by the same. We do not find the same to be a ground to declare the impugned notification as ultra vires.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as 2012 (3) JLJ 170 = (2012) 6 SCC 312 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Kohli and another held in para 17 as under :--

17. This Court has repeatedly stated that legislative enactment can be struck down by Court only on two grounds, namely (i), that the appropriate Legislature does not have competency to make the law and (ii), that it does not take away or abridge any of the fundamental rights enumerated in Part – III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions. In Mcdowell and Co.2 while dealing with the challenge to an enactment based on Article 14, this Court stated in paragraph 43 of the Report as follows : (SCC pp.737-38)

“...A law made by Parliament or the legislature can be struck down by Courts on two grounds and two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. There is no third ground……….

…….. if an enactment is challenged as violative of Article 14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein. Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by clauses (a) to (g) of Article 19(1), it can be struck down only if it is found not saved by any of the clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on