Service Law — Promotion — Relaxation of qualification — Power of authority — Where Rules provide for relaxation in educational qualification for promotion on basis of experience, competence and seniority — Resolution granting relaxation passed by competent authority (Board of Directors) — Registrar could not override or reject such valid resolution — Rejection unsustainable. (Paras 6–6.2)

advocatemmmohan

Service Law — Promotion — Relaxation of qualification — Power of authority —

Where Rules provide for relaxation in educational qualification for promotion on basis of experience, competence and seniority — Resolution granting relaxation passed by competent authority (Board of Directors) — Registrar could not override or reject such valid resolution — Rejection unsustainable.

(Paras 6–6.2)

---

Service Law — Promotion — Discrimination — Similarly situated employees —

Where similarly situated employees possessing identical qualification were granted relaxation and promoted, denial of same benefit to appellant amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment violative of equality principles.

(Paras 7–7.2, 9.1)

---

Constitution of India — Articles 14 & 16 — Equality in public employment —

Unequal treatment among similarly situated employees in matters of promotion and relaxation of qualification violates Articles 14 and 16 — Doctrine of equality mandates uniform application of rules.

(Paras 9–9.1)

---

Administrative decision — Requirement of reasons —

Order rejecting relaxation passed in a cryptic and non-speaking manner, without assigning reasons, is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

(Para 5.3)

---

Promotion — Experience vs qualification —

Long and satisfactory service, seniority and experience are relevant considerations for grant of relaxation in qualification where rules permit — Such factors cannot be ignored arbitrarily.

(Paras 5–5.2, 6.1)

---

Negative equality — Not applicable —

Where similarly situated employees were validly granted benefit under rules, claim of appellant is not based on negative equality but on lawful parity — Denial unjustified.

(Para 7.2)

---

High Court — Division Bench — Erroneous approach —

Division Bench erred in overlooking permissible relaxation under rules and in contradicting itself regarding competent authority — Interference warranted.

(Paras 8–8.2)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI 

Where rules permit relaxation in educational qualification for promotion, denial of such relaxation to an employee, while granting the same to similarly situated employees, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16; a validly exercised discretion by the competent authority cannot be nullified by a cryptic and unreasonable administrative decision.

---

RESULT

• Appeals allowed
• High Court (Division Bench) judgment set aside
• Relief in favour of appellant restored

(Paras 10–11)