Summary
The Court upheld exclusion from a Chief Engineer promotion eligibility list of officers who admittedly lacked the prescribed twenty-five years of qualifying service. The existence of a power to relax service requirements did not give them a right to relaxation. Where the competent authority consciously declined to exercise that discretion, the High Court could not compel relaxation merely because the rules permitted it or to expand the field of selection.
Issues
- Whether officers lacking the prescribed qualifying service were entitled to inclusion through mandatory relaxation.
- Whether the High Court could direct the competent authority to grant relaxation under the enabling rule.
Provisions considered
- Rule 4, U.P. Government Servants Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006The permissive relaxation power did not create an enforceable right to its exercise in the officers’ favour. (¶ 7.1)
Held
- The officers admittedly had not completed the twenty-five years of service required for Chief Engineer promotion, including the specified service as Superintending Engineer. Their exclusion accorded with the governing recruitment rules, so the eligibility lists should not have been quashed. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.3, 7)
- The rule uses permissive language. A conscious decision declining relaxation cannot be displaced by mandamus to grant it solely because relaxation is authorized. The High Court therefore erred both in directing relaxation and in setting aside lists prepared under the applicable rules. (¶¶ 7.1, 8)
Result
State appeal allowed. The Single Judge and Division Bench judgments were set aside and the officers’ writ petition dismissed; no costs.