Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) Briefly, the fact are that the petitioner is working as Deputy Economic and Statistical Adviser in the Planning Department, Government of Haryana. Prior to September. 1977 Mr. R. P. Chopra, respondent No 2, who was a step senior to the petitioner in the seniority list, was also working as a Deputy Economic and Statistical Adviser in the same department. The post of Deputy Economic and Statistical Adviser as well as the post of Economic and Statistical Adviser are Class I post. The conditions of service of these posts are governed by statutory rules called the Punjab Economic and Statistical Organization (State Service Class I) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) In Rule 8 of the Rules. academic qualifications for appointment to the post in the service have been prescribed. In Dec., 1976, one post of Joint Economic and Statistical Adviser was created and the same was to be filled from amongst the eligible Deputy Economic and Statistical Advisers. The petitioner made a representation that respondent No. 2 did not fulfil the qualifications for appointment to that past and that the petitioner may be considered for the appointment. The post was not, however, fulfilled By an order dated July 18, .1977. respondent No. 2 was appointed to look-after the - current duties of the Economic and Statistical Adviser, as Mr. K. C. Gupta who was acting as such proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 did not fulfil the qualifications of the post and, therefore, his appointment as such was illegal. It is further alleged that the petitioner had made a representation earlier challenging the right of respondent No. 2 to hold the post of a Joint Economic and Statistical Adviser as well as Economic and Statistical Adviser on the ground that he did not fulfil the qualifications prescribed under the Rules which had not been decided till then. The petitioner, it is further averred, met the Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana who informed him that his representation was under consideration and the final decision regarding the filling up of the post of Economic and Statistical Adviser would be made after the decision of the representation.
(2.) Respondent No. 2 was thereafter appointed to the post of Economic and Statistical Adviser with effect from Oct. 31, 1977 vide order (Annexure P. 3) dated Sept. 20, 1977. On coming to know about his appointment, the petitioner requested the State of Haryana Respondent No 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner He has been informed vide letter dated Aug. 17, 1978 that his representation has been rejected. The petitioner has challenged the orders promoting respondent No. 2 to the post of Economic and Statistical Adviser dated July 18, 1977 and Sept. 20, 1977 (Annexures P. 2 and P. 3) inter alia on the ground that he was not eligible to be considered for that post as he did not possess the requisite qualifications.
(3.) The petitioner has further stated that respondent No. I treated respondent No. 2 as eligible on the basis of general order of relaxation issued under Rule 16 of the Rules, on June 28, 1966. He has then averred that no general relaxation could be give by respondent No. I and consequently the order granting such relaxation ii illegal and deserves to be quashed He has consequently filed the writ petition praying that the appointment and promotion of respondent No. 2 to the post of Economic and Statistical Adviser be quashed.;