Relaxation in recruitment rules requires comparable discretionary benefit; denied promotion was upheld for unmet height criteria.

Recruitment rules for promotion to Inspector (Central Excise) prescribed a mandatory minimum height requirement, and failure to satisfy that eligibility condition defeated the claim for promotion. Relaxation of such rules was not a matter of right; it could be claimed only where the competent authority had extended the same discretionary benefit to similarly placed employees. No individual relaxation had been granted, and the height relaxation relied on was confined to specified Tribes and communities to which the petitioner did not belong. The comparison with differently-abled candidates was rejected because they constitute a separate class under disability legislation, so no discrimination was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to relaxation of the recruitment rules for promotion to the post of Inspector (Central Excise), and whether denial of such relaxation was discriminatory.

Analysis: The recruitment rules prescribed a mandatory minimum height requirement for promotion. The petitioner did not satisfy that eligibility condition. Relaxation was not a matter of right and could be claimed only if the competent authority had extended the same discretionary benefit to similarly placed employees. No individual relaxation had been granted; the height relaxation relied upon by the petitioner was part of a policy applicable to specified Tribes and communities to which he did not belong. The comparison with differently-abled candidates was also untenable because they form a separate and distinct class for the purposes of the governing disability legislation.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relaxation of the rules, and no case of discrimination was made out.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the denial of promotion failed, and the impugned administrative action stood sustained.

---