1

      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

       CIVIL APPEAL NO.2367 OF 2002

VIJAY BALA BHANOT & ANR.         ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. DELHI & ORS.         ... RESPONDENTS

WITH C.A. NO.3576/2002

O R D E R

The appellants, who were working as Lab Technicians, were promoted as

Technical Assistants by relaxing the educational qualifications prescribed for the post

on 27.11.1998. That was challenged by the second responded-Association before the

Central  Administrative  Tribunal.  The  Administrative  Tribunal  by  order  dated

4.11.1999  allowed  the  application and set  aside  the  promotion of  the  appellants

herein.  The  writ  petitions  filed  by  the  appellants  challenging  the  order  of  the

Administrative Tribunal have been rejected. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have

filed  these  appeals  by  special  leave contending  that  the  requirement relating  to

educational qualifications having been relaxed by the competent authority, there was

no infirmity in their promotion.

2. The recruitment rules prescribed the following qualifications for the post

of Technical Assistants  :

2

'B.Sc  (Medical  Lab.  Technician)  with  3  years  experience  as  a  Lab

Technician in any group of these laboratories of  Medical Institution/

Hospital.

OR

1. Matriculation/ Hr.Secondary/ Sr.Secondary with Science.

2. Diploma in Medical Lab. Technology from a recognised  Institution.

3. Three years experience as a Lab Technician in any group of these Laboratories of Medical Institution/Hospital.

3. It is not disputed that the appellants do not fulfill  the said requirements.

In  the  case  of  appellants  in  Civil  Appeal  No.2367  of  2002,  they  did  not  pass

matriculation or Higher Secondary or Senior Secondary with Science as a subject. In

so far as the appellants in Civil Appeal No.3576 of 2002 are concerned, they did not

possess a Diploma in Medical Lab. Technology from a recognised Institution.

4. The Government of  N.C.T.,  Delhi has stated that it  took a decision to

extend  relaxation  to  the  appellants  to  provide  career  progression  as  they  were

experienced employees. The explanation for relaxation was that the appellants had

already rendered sufficient length of service and therefore the short comings in their

qualifications became immaterial.

5. But  the  crucial  question  is  whether  there  was  power  to  relax  the

qualifications.  Note:4 under the Recruitment Rules  providing for relaxation reads

thus:  

“Where the Administrator is  of  the opinion that  it  is  necessary or expedient so to do,  he may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing relax any of the provisions of the rules with respect to a class or category of persons/posts”.

3

A careful reading of the Note:4 shows that relaxation of the rules can be only with

respect to a class or category of  persons/posts and not in regard to individuals. In

this case, the relaxation was not with respect of a class or category of persons or

posts, but with reference to individuals. The High Court has also noticed that several

qualified candidates were available and the power of relaxation in the rules cannot be

permitted to be used to ignore the legitimate claims of the qualified candidates.  

6. We  therefore  find  no  reason  to  interfere  with  the  order  of  the

Administrative Tribunal confirmed by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed.

We however make it clear that no recovery shall be made in regard to the period

during which the appellants worked in the higher post of Technical Assistants.

7. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that some of the appellants have

retired and others  are approaching age  of  superannuation.  He  submits  that  any

reversion after ten years of service in the higher post will cause them hardship. He

therefore submitted that the appellants may be permitted to submit representations

for protection,  by  treating their service in the  higher post   as  being in ex-cadre

supernumerary posts. All that we can say is that the dismissal of these appeals will

not  come in  the  way of  giving  any representation.  But  such  permission to  give

representation shall not be construed as recognising or conferring any right for relief.

............................J.          ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

    ............................J.

4

               ( DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ) NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 03, 2008.