Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

Madhya Pradesh PSC
1982. According to petitioner in M.P.No.1393 of 88 (Narendra Kumar Choudhary) he is enrolled as
an Advocate since 5.11.1982 and is 28 years of age. Therefore, he possesses all the qualification for
appointment as Presiding Officer of the Labour Department. The contentions of the third petitioner
Bhanwarlal is that he possesses all the requisite qualifications for being appointed as Presiding Officer.
He has wrongly been deprived of an opportunity to appear at the interview. According to petitioner
Pawankumar also he has wrongly been deprived of an opportunity to appear at the interview although
he possesses all the requisite qualifications which are prescribed by the Act and Rules framed thereunder.
6. The grievance of the two petitioners Ku. Manorama Singhal and Miss Asha Pande are a little
different. According to them, they being over age were probably not called for interview. Their
grievance is that although they have not been called for interview by the Public Service Commission,
in view of the fact that they were over age, but Shri. Dhananjay Tambe and Smt. Ranjana Saxena have
been called for interview although they both are also over aged as such it is a clear case of
discrimination they have also averred that in the earlier selection process in which Smt. Ranjana Saxena
and Shri Dhananjay Tambe were selected as Presiding Officers of Labour Courts, both the petitioners
had also competed and, therefore, even if these two candidates are treated as falling in different
category, the petitioners are all in the same category.
7. As the cases of Ku. Manorama Singal and Miss. Asha Pande are of different footings than the
other petitioners, we propose to deal with these petitions first.
8. In reply to the averments made by Ku. Asha Pande and Ku. Manorama Singhal, the Public
Service Commission has stated that the respondents No.3 and 4 in M.P. 1385 of 88 i.e. Shri Dhananajay
Tambe and Smt. Ranjana Saxena have been called for interview by the Public Service Commission
because the State Government in the Labour Department, vide order No.1(A)6/88/16-!/88 dated
5.7.1988 have relaxed the upper age limit in respect of respondents Nos.3 and 4. The copies of the
orders of the State Government have also been filed with the return.
9. According respondent No.3 the State Government had power under Rule 21 of the M.P.
Labour Judiciary Service (Gazetted Recruitment) Rules 1965 (hereinafter called the Rules) and therefore,
in exercise of this power the State Government relaxed the age of the respondent No.3 in view of the
fact that he was already appointed as a Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, but due to some
technical defect the appointment did not continue and as a glaring injustice was done to the respondent
685