G.L.GUPTA, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS no. 2 and 3, Assistants and petitioner no. 1, Micro Processor Operator in the Divisional Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bikaner have called in question the Notification Anx. 1, issued by respondent no. 2 on 2.8.1997 to effect the promotions to the posts of Higher Grade Assistants. The notification has been challenged on various grounds.
(2.) IT has been averred that for promotion to the post of Higher Grade Assistants an Assistant must have minimum service of 5 years to his credit but the Chairman in exercise of the powers under Rule 8 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987 (for short the Rules of 1987) has given relaxation of two years and thereby permitting the members of S.C. and S.T. to compete for the post of H.G.A. with 3 years service experience only. It has been further averred that the pass marks in the departmental examination is 50% in each paper for the general category candidates but only 40% pass marks have been provided for the reserved category candidates and this relaxation has adversely affected the chances of general category candidates. It has been stated that Rule 8 of the Rules of 1987 is violative of Article 14 because it does not contain guidelines as to in what circumstances relaxation can be granted. It has been further stated that relaxation will result into compromising efficiency and it is contrary to the ratio laid down in the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India : AIR1993SC477 . It has also been averred that non -mentioning of the number of vacancies in the notification is illegal. It has been prayed that Rule 8 be declared invalid, relaxation in service experience made in favour of S.C. and S.T. candidates be quashed, and the portion of Appendix -II relating to pass marks for SC./S.T. candidates i.e. 40% in each paper be declared illegal. In the return filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 it has been averred that the Chairman had issued the Instruction in 1987 under the Regulations of the year 1960 and thus, the writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay. It has been further stated that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the relaxation made in favour of the members of the S.C./S.Ts. as the relaxation is not available to those members of the S.C./S.T. category who compete against the quota fixed for general candidates. It has been denied that the relaxation of two years in the matter of experience given to the members of S.C./S.T. category is invalid or that the provision of less pass marks for the members of the S.C./S.T. violates any principle.
(3.) IN the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, it has been averred that the writ petitions are not filed to resolve the academic issues; they are filed only when something affects the rights of the persons and as the petitioners are likely to be affected by the impugned order they have approached this Court. It has been further stated that the vacancies remaining unfilled on account of non -availability of S.C./S.T. candidates, are to be filled by the candidates from general category and therefore the relaxation will adversely affect the petitioners, rights.;