1995 3 scr 544 the following order of the companyrt was delivered the appellants who are promotees in the cadre of inspectors and even higher posts in the department under factories and boilers branch in the state of karnataka are aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal quashing the gradation list as published in 1975.
while the correspondence was pending the state government framed two rules one mysore state government service recruitment of local candidates to class iii posts rules 1966 and mysore labour service recruitment rules 1966.
companysequently the order of the labour commissioner regularising the services of the appellants on 15.12.1967 was number in accordance with law.
the companymissioner of labour took recourse to these rules specially the rules relating to the local candidates and purported to regularise the services of appellants by regularly appointing them.
the minimum qualification for appointment as assistant inspector then was a degree in science.
they were appointed as assistant inspectors factories in 1963.
during pendency of these proceedings further prpmotions were also made.
the chief inspector of factories therefore wrote to the government that their service be regularised.
in may 1971 the respondents were appointed as inspectors of factories by direct selection.
the appellants promotees were shown as senior to respondents direct appointees.
they were appointed probably because qualified persons were number available.
in the mean time one of the appellants was promoted as senior inspector class i. the respondents then challenged the initial appointment of appellants.
the government realised the difficulty of the appellants therefore it amended 1959 rules retrospectively in 1984 and provided diploma as one of the qualifications for assistant inspector of factories.
when numberrelief came from the government they approached the high companyrt but the petitions were transferred to tribunal.
the latter rules relaxed the qualification and the minimum qualification became diploma in engineering.
the respondents represented against it.
the appellants were only diploma holders.
