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&

3

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 gksxk A lgk;d dY;k.k vk;qDr inksa esa 25

izfr'kr lh/kh Hkjrh ls ,oa 75 izfr'kr inksUufr ls Hkjs tk;sxsa A

tcfd ys[kkf/kdkjh dk in 'kklu }kjk ¼foRr 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.

4

6.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as (2012) 6

SCC 312 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. 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 the ground that court

thinks it u