http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: J.C. YADAV & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1990

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) THOMMEN, T.K. (J) KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR  857            1990 SCR  (2) 470  1990 SCC  (2) 189        JT 1990 (1)   278  1990 SCALE  (1)229  CITATOR INFO :  R          1990 SC1069  (5,6,7)

ACT:     Haryana Service of Engineers Class I PWD (Public  Health Branch)  Rules, 1961: Rule 22--Power of Government to  relax requirement  of  any of the Rules-Scope  and  interpretation of--Meaning of expression "in any particular case"---Whether power  to  grant relaxation may be exercised in case  of  an :individual to remove hardship caused to him or to a  number of individuals who all may be similarly placed-Relaxation of requirement  of Rule 6(b) granted to a group of  individuals to meet a particular situation--Validity of. Words and Phrases--’In particular case’--Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:     The  appointment  and promotion to Class  I  Engineering Service in the State of Haryana are regulated by the Haryana Service  of  Engineers Class I PWD  (Public  Health  Branch) Rules,  1961.  Rule 5 provides for appointment  to  Class  I Service,  inter  alia, by promotion from Class  II  Service. Rule 6(b) prescribed that no person shall be promoted unless he  has  completed eight years service in Class II  and  has passed  professional examination to the department. Rule  22 confers power on the Government to relax any of the Rules it may consider necessary.     The  appellants and the contesting respondent were  mem- bers  of  the Haryana Service of Engineers Class II  in  the Public  Health Branch. In 1971 the appellants were  promoted to  the post of Executive Engineers in the cadre of Class  I service on ad hoc basis while the respondent was not consid- ered  for  promotion. Later, a Committee  constituted  under Rule  8 for selecting suitable candidates for  promotion  to Class I post, considered the names of the appellants and the respondent  but did not find the respondent suitable.  Hence it  included the appellant’s|ant’s names only in the  select list.  The appellants did not possess the requisite  minimum period  of service of 8 years in Class II service but  since no  other suitable candidates were available, the  Committee recommended  to  the Govt. for granting  relaxation  to  the appellants. The State Public Service Commission approved the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

recommendations.   The   State   Government   accepted   the recommendations  and  appointed the appellants  to  Class  I service by a Notification dated May 3, 1973. 471     The  contesting respondent filed a Writ Petition  before the  High Court challenging the validity of the  appellants’ promotion  on the ground that since the appellants  did  not possess the requisite qualification for promotion to Class I Service their promotions were contrary to rules.     A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the  petition holding  that since the Government had relaxed Rule 6(b)  in appellants’  favour,  their promotions were  sustainable  in law.  On appeal, the Division Bench quashed the  appellants’ promotion  on  the ground that the State Government  had  no authority in law to grant relaxation to the appellants under Rule 22 in a general manner as the power of relaxation could be  exercised only in individual cases to mitigate  hardship caused to an individual. Hence the appeal by special leave. Allowing the Appeal, this Court,     HELD:  1. Power to grant relaxation may be exercised  in case of an individual to remove hardship being caused to him or  to  a  number of individuals who all  may  be  similarly placed. This power may also be exercised to meet a  particu- lar situation where on account of the operation of the rules hardship  is being caused to a set of  individual  officers. [477G-H]     2. I Rule 22 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I PWD  (Public Health Branch) Rules 1961 confers power on  the Government  to dispense with or to relax the requirement  of any  of the Rules to the extent and with such conditions  as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in  just and  equitable manner. The object and purpose of  conferring this  power on the Government is to mitigate undue  hardship in any particular case. If the Rules cause undue hardship or operate  in an inequitable manner, the State Government  has power to dispense with or to relax the requirement of Rules. The Rule does not restrict the exercise of power to individ- ual cases. The Government may in certain circumstances relax the  requirement  of Rules to meet a  particular  situation. [477A-B]     2.2.  The expression "in any particular case"  does  not mean  that  the  relaxation should be confined  only  to  an individual  case.  One  of the meanings  of  the  expression "particular"  means "peculiar or pertaining to  a  specified person--thing--time  or place--not common or  general".  The meaning  of the word ’particular’ in relation to  law  means separate or special, limited or specific. The word ’case’ in ordinary usage means 472 ’event’,  ’happenings’,  ’situation’,  ’circumstances’.  The expression  ’case’ in legal sense means ’a case’. ’suit’  or ’proceeding  in Court or Tribunal’. Having regard  to  these meanings the expression ’in any particular case’ would  mean in  a  particular or pertaining to an  event,  situation  or circumstance. [477C-D]     2.3.  Rule 22 postulates relaxation of Rules to  meet  a particular event or situation, if the operation of the Rules causes hardship. ’[he Scope of the said Rule is wide  enough to  confer  power on the State Government to relax  the  re- quirement  of Rules in respect of an individual or class  of individuals to the extent it may consider necessary  dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. [477E-F]     2.4  The power of relaxation is generally  contained  in the rules with a view to mitigate undue hardship or to  meet a  particular situation. Many a time strict  application  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

service rules create a situation where a particular individ- ual  or a set of individuals may suffer undue  hardship  and further  there may be a situation where requisite  qualified persons may not be available for appointment to the service. In  such  a  situation, the Government has  power  to  relax requirement of rules.The state Government may in exercise of its  powers  issue a general order relaxing  any  particular rule with a view to avail the service of requisite officers. The  relaxation  even if granted in a general  manner  would enure to the benefit of individual officers. [477F-G]     2.5 Rule 22 is a beneficial one. It must be construed in a  liberal manner and should not be interpreted in a  manner to  defeat  the  very object and purpose of  such  power.  A narrow  construction  would nullify  Government’s  power  of relaxing rules of meet a particular situation. [480C]     Jit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 194 differed; Ashok Gulati v. B.S. Jain, AIR 1987 SC 424 referred to.     In  the instant case, the non-availability of  Class  II officers in Engineering Department possessing the  necessary and prescribed qualifications for promotion to Class I posed a  problem  for the State Government, as on account  of  the large scale expansion of Engineering Department a number  of posts in Class I service were lying vacant. A similar situa- tion  prevailed  in the Building and Road Branch  of  Public Works Department. In the circumstances, the State Government with a 473 view  to meet the particular situation decided to relax  the qualifying  length of service to such officers who had  com- pleted  four  years of service in Class 1I.  It,  therefore, relaxed  the  requirement of Rule (b) to the extent  that  a member  of  Class II service having four years  service  was qualified  for  being considered for promotion  in  Class  I service. These facts would clearly show that the  relaxation had  been granted to particular individuals with a  view  to meet the situation which was in public interest. There is no legal infirmity in the order of’ relaxation. [478D-F]     3.  I If power of relaxation is exercised on  extraneous consideration  for oblique purposes or mala fide, the  Court has power to strike down the same, but bona fide exercise of power of relaxation to meet a particular situation cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. [479A]     3.2 Since the appellants were found suitable for  promo- tion  by  the screening committee, the  Commission  and  the State  Government, and as the contesting respondent was  not found  suitable  even  otherwise for  promotion,  the  State Government  granted relaxation of Rule (b) in favour of  the appellants. In such a situation, it cannot be said that  the power of relaxation under Rule 22 was exercised  arbitrarily or  that  it caused hardship to any one. In the  absence  of relaxation,  there  could  be no promotion to  the  post  of Executive Engineer and the officers who were found  suitable would  have  suffered great hardship. Therefore,  the  State Government  with  a view to meet  the  particular  situation exercised  its  power of relaxation in  appellants’  favour. Having  regard to the facts and circumstances of  the  case, there is no illegality in the appellants’ promotion,  pursu- ant  to  the  relaxation granted by  the  State  Government. [480D-E; G-H]     Ashok  Gulati  v. B.S. Jain, AIR 1987 424; Jit  Singh  & Ors.  v.  State of Punjab & Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 194  and  Ram Sarup v. State of Punjab, [1979] 1 SCC 168 referred to.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1009  of 1980.     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.1.80 of the  Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 592 of 1975. P.P. Rao and Jitender Sharma for the appellants. Rajinder Sachhar, Govind Mukhoty, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, S.C. 474 Mohanta, Mahabir Singh, T.C. Sharma, P.P. Singh, S.K. Verma, C.M. Nayyar and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SINGH,  J.  This  appeal by special  leave  is  directed against  the order of the High Court of Punjab  and  Haryana dated 15th January, 1980 quashing the Notification dated 3rd May, 1973 issued by the State Government of Haryana  promot- ing the appellants to the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I post (Public Health Branch).     The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appel- lants  S/Sh. J.C. Yadav, B.R. Batra, O.P. Juneja, S.L.  Cho- pra, M.S. Miglani, C.P. Taneja, Surjit Singh and V.P. Gulati and respondents Vyas Dev were members of the Haryana Service of  Engineers Class II in the Public Health Branch.  Members of the Class II service are eligible for promotion of  Class I  posts  in accordance with the provisions of  the  Haryana Service of Engineers Class 1 Public Works Department (Public Health  Branch) Rules 1961 (hereinafter referred to as  ’the Rules’). In 1971 the appellants were promoted to the post of Executive Engineers in the cadre of Class 1 on ad-hoc  basis while Vyas Dev respondent was not considered for  promotion. He  made representation but nothing came out in his  favour. Later a Committee was constituted under Rule 8 for selecting suitable  members of Class 12 service promotion to  Class  I post.  The Committee considered the case of  appellants  and Vyas  Dev  respondent, but it did not  find  the  respondent suitable  for  promotion, his name was not included  in  the select list prepared by the Committee while the names of the appellants were included therein. The Selection  Committee’s recommendation was approved by the Public Service Commission and  it  was forwarded to the State  Government.  Since  the appellants  did not possess the requisite minimum period  of service  of eight years’ in Class II service as required  by Rule  6(b) and as no other suitable candidates  were  avail- able,  the  Selection Committee made recommendation  to  the State Government for granting relaxation to the  appellants. The Committee’s recommendation was reiterated by the  Public Service Commission. The State Government accepted the recom- mendations  and appointed the appellants to Class I  service by the Notification dated May 3, 1973.     Vyas  Dev, respondent challenged validity of the  appel- lants’ promotion by means for a writ petition under  Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Punjab  and Haryana  on the ground that the appellants did  not  possess requisite qualification for promo- 475 tion  to  Class I service, therefore their  promotions  were contrary to Rules. His further grievance was that he was not considered  along with the appellants for promotion  and  he was not afforded opportunity of hearing before he was super- seded.  A learned single Judge of the High  Court  dismissed the petition on the finding that the Selection Committee had considered  the case of Vyas Dev along with  the  appellants for promotion but he was not found suitable. As regards  the appellants’ promotions the learned Judge held that since the State Government had relaxed Rule 6(b) in their favour their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

promotions  were sustainable in law. The learned Judge  fur- ther  held  that  no personal hearing was  necessary  to  be afforded  to Ved Vyas before his supersession. On appeal  by the respondent a Division Bench of the High Court set  aside the  order  of the single Judge and quashed  the  appellants promotions on the sole ground that the State Government  had no  authority in law to grant relaxation to  the  appellants under  Rule 22 in a general manner, as the power of  relaxa- tion could be exercised only in individual cases to mitigate hardship  caused  to an individual. On  these  findings  the Division Bench set aside the appellants’ promotions.     The  appointment  and promotion to Class  I  Engineering Service in the State of Haryana are regulated by the Haryana Service  of  Engineers Class I PWD  (Public  Health  Branch) Rules  1961.  Initially these Rules had been framed  by  the Governor  of  Punjab  before the formation  of  the  Haryana State.  There is no dispute that subsequently the  State  of Haryana had adopted these Rules and the recruitment to Class I  service  of Engineers in PWD (Public  Health  Branch)  is regulated  by the Haryana Service of Engineers Class  I  PWD (Public  Health Branch) Rules, 1961 as amended from time  to time. Rule 5 provides for appointment to Class I service  by direct  appointment,  by transfer of an officer  already  in service of the State Government or of the Union  Government, or  by  promotion from Class II Service. Rule  6  prescribes qualifications  for  appointment  to Class  I  service.  The relevant provisions of the Rule are as under: "6.  Qualifications:  No person shall be  appointed  to  the service, unless he: (a) possesses one of the University Degree or other qualifi- cations prescribed in Appendix 8 of these rules: Provided that Government may waive this qualification in the case of particular officer belonging to Class II Service: 476 (b) in the case of an appointment by promotion from Class II Service,  has eight years completed Class II and has  passed the professional examination of the department Rule 8 provides for constitution of the Committee for making selection  for appointment to Class I service by  promotion. The  Committee  is required to prepare a  list  of  officers suitable for promotion on the basis of the criteria of merit and  suitability with due regard to seniority. Rule  9  lays down, field of eligibility as well as criteria for promotion to  the post of Executive Engineer, Superintending  Engineer and Chief Engineer. Rule 15 provides for departmental exami- nations,  according to this Rule the officers  appointed  to the  Service, Unless they have already done so,  shall  pass such departmental examination and within such period as  may be  prescribed by the Government. The Rule confers power  on the  Government to prescribe for any other test in  addition to the departmental examination for promotion or appointment to  any  rank in the service. Rule 22 confers power  on  the Government  to  relax any of the Rules as  it  may  consider necessary.  There is no dispute that none of the  appellants had  completed eight years’ service in Class II  service  as required by Rule 6(b) and as such they were not eligible for promotion  to the post of Executive Engineer. On the  recom- mendation  of the Selection Committee and with the  approval of  the Public Service Commission the State  Government  re- laxed the requirement of eight years’ service so far as  the appellants were concerned. Consequently, the appellants were promoted  and  appointed as Executive  Engineers  under  the Notification dated 3rd May, 1973.     The  sole  question  for consideration  is  whether  the relaxation granted by the State Government in favour of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

appellants  is  valid. Rule 22 which confers  power  on  the Government to relax requirement of Rules, is as under: "Rule 22. Power to relax  ............  Where Government  is satisfied  that the operation of any of these  Rules  causes undue  hardship  to  any particular case, it  may  by  order dispense with or relax the requirements of that Rule to such extent,  and subject to such conditions, as it may  consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and  equitable manner. 477     The  Rule  confers power on the Government  to  dispense with or to relax the requirement of any of the Rules to  the extent and with such conditions as it may consider necessary for  dealing with the case in a just and  equitable  manner. The  object  and  purpose of conferring this  power  on  the Government  is to mitigate undue hardship in any  particular case,  and to deal with a case in a just and equitable  man- ner.  If the Rules cause undue hardship or Rules operate  in an inequitable manner in that event the State Government has power to dispense with or to relax the requirement of Rules. The Rule does not restrict the exercise of power to individ- ual cases. The Government may in certain circumstances relax the requirement of Rules to meet a particular situation. The expression  "in any particular case" does not mean that  the relaxation  should be confined only to an  individual  case. One  of  the meanings of the expression  "particular"  means "peculiar  or pertaining to a specified  person--thing--time or  place--not common or general". The meaning of  the  word particular  in  relation to law means separate  or  special, limited or specific. The word ’case’ in ordinary usage means ’event’,  ’happening’,  ’situation’,  ’circumstances’.   The expression  ’case’ in legal sense means ’a case’, ’suit’  or ’proceeding  in Court or Tribunal’. Having regard  to  these meanings the expression ’in any particular case’ would mean; in  a  particular or pertaining to an  event,  situation  or circumstance. Rule 22 postulates relaxation of Rules to meet a  particular  event or situation, if the operation  of  the Rules causes hardship. The relaxation of the Rules may be to the  extent the State Government may consider necessary  for dealing with a particular situation in a just and  equitable manner. The scope of Rule is wide enough to confer power  on the  State Government to relax the requirement of  Rules  in respect  of  an individual or class of  individuals  to  the extent  it may consider necessary for dealing with the  case in  a just and equitable manner. The power of relaxation  is generally  contained  in the Rules with a view  to  mitigate undue  hardship  or to meet a particular situation.  Many  a times strict application of service rules create a situation where  a particular individual or a set of  individuals  may suffer  undue hardship and further there may be a  situation where  requisite qualified persons may not be available  for appointment to the service. In such a situation the  Govern- ment  has  power to relax requirement of  Rules.  The  State Government  may  in exercise of its powers issue  a  general order relaxing any particular Rule with a view to avail  the services  of  requisite  officers. The  relaxation  even  if granted  in a general manner would enure to the  benefit  of individual officers.     The State of Haryana was formed in March, 1966 prior  to that  it was part of the State of Punjab. The service  rules relating to Public 478 Works  Department as applicable to the State of Punjab  were made  applicable  to  Haryana. Rule  6(b)  which  prescribed qualification  for appointment to Class I service lays  down

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

that  no person shall be appointed to the service by  promo- tion  from  Class II service unless he has  completed  eight years’  service  in  Class II and  has  passed  departmental examination prescribed under Rule 15. None of the appellants had  completed eight years’ service in Class II. In fact  no other  member of Class II service possessing  the  requisite qualifications was available for selection to Class I  post. The  respondent no doubt possessed the requisite  qualifica- tion  with  regard to the eight years length of  service  in Class II but he did not possess requisite educational quali- fication. Thus no qualified officer of Class II service  was available for promotion to Class I service although a number of vacancies were existing in Class I service. Having regard to  these facts the Selection Committee made  recommendation for the relaxation of Rule 6(b) in favour of the appellants, who  were found otherwise suitable. The Public Service  Com- mission  also  agreed with the recommendation  made  by  the Selection Committee. The non-availability of suitable  Class II officers in Engineering Department possessing the  neces- sary and prescribed qualifications for promotion to Class  I posed  a problem for the State Government, as on account  of the large scale expansion of Engineering Department a number of  posts  in Class I service were lying vacant.  A  similar situation  prevailed  in  the Building and  Road  Branch  of Public  Works  Department. In the circumstances,  the  State Government  with  a view to meet  the  particular  situation decided  to relax the qualifying length of service  to  such officers  who had completed four years of service  in  Class II, it therefore relaxed the requirement of Rule 6(b) to the extent that a member of Class II service having four  years’ service was qualified for being considered for promotion  to Class  I  service. These facts would clearly show  that  the relaxation had been granted to particular individuals with a view to meet the situation, which was in public interest. We find no legal infirmity in the order of relaxation.     In B.S. Bansal v. State of Punjab and Ors., [1978] 2 SLR 553  a Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held  that if  the power of relaxation could be exercised in  order  to meet a general situation, then the whole purpose of the Rule would  be frustrated and the Government would be armed  with an arbitrary power which could cause great hardship to  some officers.  We  have already referred to the  relevant  facts which show that in the instant case, power of relaxation was exercised  by  the  State Government to  meet  a  particular situation,  it  did not result into any injustice  or  cause hardship to any one. If power of 479 relaxation  is  exercised on  extraneous  consideration  for oblique purposes or mala fide, the court has power to strike down the same but exercise of power of relaxation to meet  a particular  situation  cannot  be held to  be  arbitrary  or illegal. In B.S. Jain v. State of Haryana, [1981] 1 SLR  233 the High Court set aside the promotions made in pursuance of the relaxation granted under Rule 22 placing reliance on the decision  of  the Division Bench in B.S. Bansal’s  case.  On appeal, this Court in Ashok Gulati v. B.S. Jain, AIR 1987 SC 424  observed that the findings of the High Court  that  the State  Government  could not have relaxed the  condition  of passing the departmental professional examination by  taking recourse  to Rule 22 which conferred power of relaxation  on the State Government could hardly be sustained.     In Jit Singh & Ors. v. State of Pubjab & Ors., [1979]  3 SCR  194  the State Government’s order  granting  relaxation under  Rule  14 of the Punjab Police Service Rules  1959  in respect  of the period of service, was questioned.  Rule  14

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

was  almost  identical in terms as Rule 22  of  the  instant case. In Jit Singh’s case (supra) promotion of Inspectors to the  post of Deputy Superintendent of Police  was  involved. Under  the  Police  Service Rules 1959  a  Police  Inspector having six years’ continuous service was eligible for promo- tion  to  the post of Deputy Superintendent of  Police.  The State  Government  in exercise of its power  under  Rule  14 granting relaxation to Inspectors who had been found fit for promotion,  as a large number of vacancies had  occurred  in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police and no suitable persons  having the requisite period of service were  avail- able. Promotions made pursuant to the relaxation were  chal- lenged  before the High Court. The High Court dismissed  the writ  petition on the ground that the petitioners before  it were  not  qualified for promotion. On  appeal  before  this Court, the High Court’s judgment was upheld. This Court took the view that since the appellants before it were not eligi- ble  for promotion as their names were not included  in  the Select  List prepared by the Public Service  Commission  and further  as they had not completed six years’ of  continuous service prior to the respondents, they were not entitled  to any  relief.  The appeal was accordingly dismissed  by  this Court. While considering the question of validity of relaxa- tion, the Court made observation that Rule 14 did not permit any  general relaxation of the nature ordered by  the  State Government.  The Court, however, did not examine the  matter in detail as it was of the view that since the appellants in that  case  were not eligible for promotion they  could  not question  the validity of the appointment of those  who  had been  promoted on the basis of relaxation being  granted  by the  State  Government. The Court upheld the  promotions  in view of the extra 480 ordinary  situation in which the State Government  made  ap- pointments iv derogation of requirement of Rules.     On  a careful scrutiny of the Rules in its  various  as- pects  we  do not agree with the observations  made  in  Jit Singh’s case (supra). Though Rule 22 is not happily  worded, as apparently it gives an impression that no general relaxa- tion can be granted by the State Government, out on a  close scrutiny  of  the scope of the power we find that  a  narrow construction  of  the Rules would nullify  the  Government’s power of relaxing Rules to meet a particular situation. Rule 22 is beneficial in nature it must be construed in a liberal manner  and  it  should not be interpreted in  a  manner  to defeat  the very object and purpose of such power. Power  to grant  relaxation may be exercised in case of an  individual to  remove  hardship being caused to him or to a  number  of individuals who all may be similarly placed. This power  may also  be exercised to meet a particular situation  where  on account  of  the operation of the Rules  hardship  is  being caused to a set of individual officers. In the instant  case the  appellants  were found suitable for  promotion  by  the screening  committee, the Commission and the  State  Govern- ment,  and the contesting respondent Yvas Dev was not  found suitable even otherwise for promotion, the State  Government granted relaxation of Rule 6(b) in favour of the appellants. In  such  a situation, it is beyond comprehension  that  the power of relaxation under Rule 22 was exercised  arbitrarily or  that it caused hardship or injustice to any one. On  the formation  of  the new State of Haryana  no  promotion  from Class  II officers could be made to Class I service  without granting  any  relaxation  since 1966 to  1978.  In  1971-72 eleven  vacancies  in the post of Executive  Engineers  were filled by promotion from Class II officers although none  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

them had completed requisite period of service prescribed by the Rules for promotion. In 1976-77 and 1977-78 sixteen  and nine  vacancies respectively in the post of Executive  Engi- neers were filled by promotion by granting relaxation as  no officer  of Class II service possessing requisite number  of years  of  service was available for promotion.  In  1978-79 seven officers of Class II service were promoted to the post of  Executive  Engineer but only one of them  possessed  the requisite  period  of service and all  others  were  granted relaxation. These facts clearly show that in the absence  of relaxation there could be no promotion to the post of Execu- tive Engineer and the officers who were found suitable would have suffered great hardship. In 1973 also the State Govern- ment with a view to meet the particular situation  exercised its power of relaxation in appellants’ favour. Having regard to  these facts and circumstances, we find no illegality  in the  appellants’  promotions,  pursuant  to  the  relaxation granted by the State Government. 481     In Bansal’s case (supra) the High Court, and even in Jit Singh’s case (supra) this Court did not set aside the promo- tions made by the Government pursuant to relaxation of Rules on the ground that the petitioner who challenged the  promo- tions  was himself not qualified, and he had no legal  right to  hold the post in dispute, although in both  these  cases Government’s  order granting general relaxation was held  to be  outside the scope of Rule 22 and Rule 14 of  the  Punjab Police  Service  Rules 1959. In the instant  case  the  High Court  has  set aside the appellants’  promotions  following Bansal’s  case interpreting Rule 22 but it failed to  notice that  in  that  case the High Court did not  set  aside  the promotions  instead it dismissed the petition on the  ground that  the petitioner therein was not qualified and  none  of his  rights were affected. The High Court failed  to  notice that Vyas Dev respondent was considered for promotion but he was not found suitable, therefore he was not entitled to any relief. Since no legal right of the respondent was adversely affected  the High Court should not have quashed the  appel- lants’ promotions.     On  behalf of the appellants an  alternative  submission was  made  that since the appellants had  already  completed eight years’ of service in Class H service during the  pend- ency  of the writ petition their appointment  stood  regula- rised. To support this submission reliance was placed on the decision  of  this Court in Ram Sarup v.  State  of  Punjab, [1979]  1 SCC 168. In that case appointment to the  post  of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer was made in breach of Rule 4 Clause (I) of the Punjab Labour Service Class I and II Rules 1955  as Ram Sarup did not possess five  years’  experience, required  by sub-clause (I) of Rule 4, In spite of  that  he had  been appointed to the post  of  Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. Subsequently, Ram Sarup was reverted on the  ground that  he was not qualified to be appointed as a  Labour-cum- Conciliation  Officer  as  he did not  possess  the  minimum qualification of length of service. This Court held that the appointment of Ram Sarup made in breach of Rules was irregu- lar,  but not wholly void and since Ram Sarup had  completed five  years of experience of working of labour  laws  before his  reversion, his appointment to the post  of  Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer stood regularised with effect from  the date  he completed five years of service. On these  findings order  of reversion was set aside by this Court.  Undisputa- bly, the appellants completed eight years of service  before January  15, 1980, the date on which the Division  Bench  of the  High Court set aside their promotions. In view  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

principles laid down in Ram Sarup’s case (supra) the  appel- lants’ appointment, even if irregular, stood regularised  on the 482 date they completed eight years of their service and  there- after their promotions could not be set aside.     We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the  judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 15.1.1980 and  restore the  order  of the learned single Judge dismissing  the  re- spondents’  writ  petition.  There will be no  order  as  to costs. N.P.V.                                          Appeal   al- lowed. 483