Mandatory promotion eligibility and limited relaxation power justified correction of an erroneous promotion after notice.

Promotion to Senior Accountant required seniority, regular service and passing the departmental examination; an erroneous promotion could not override that mandatory eligibility condition, so the respondent was not eligible. The relaxation power under Rule 5 was discretionary, confined to recorded reasons and a relevant class or category, and its refusal was valid because no legally relevant ground justified relaxation or a direction to promote. The cancellation of promotion and reversion order was also valid, as notice was issued, reply considered, and the mistake corrected in accordance with the rules and fair procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondent was eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Accountant without passing the departmental examination; (ii) whether the authorities were justified in declining relaxation under the rules and whether the Tribunal could direct relaxation and promotion; (iii) whether the cancellation of promotion and reversion order, after notice, was legally valid.

Issue (i): whether the respondent was eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Accountant without passing the departmental examination.

Analysis: Under Article 148 of the Constitution of India and the Recruitment Rules framed thereunder, promotion to the post of Senior Accountant was subject to seniority, regular service, and passing of the departmental examination. The respondent had not passed the required examination, and no fraud or concealment was alleged. The erroneous promotion could not override the statutory eligibility condition.

Conclusion: The respondent was not eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Accountant.

Issue (ii): whether the authorities were justified in declining relaxation under the rules and whether the Tribunal could direct relaxation and promotion.

Analysis: Rule 5 conferred a discretionary power of relaxation on the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, to be exercised for reasons recorded in writing and with reference to a class or category of persons. The rejection of relaxation was based on the absence of eligible-candidate shortage and on the need not to perpetuate a mistake. The Tribunal treated the case as fit for relaxation and issued directions tantamount to granting relief, but that approach ignored the limited and discretionary nature of the relaxation power.

Conclusion: The refusal to relax the rule was valid, and the Tribunal was not justified in directing relaxation and promotion.

Issue (iii): whether the cancellation of promotion and reversion order, after notice, was legally valid.

Analysis: The Department issued notice under Rule 31-A of the Fundamental Rules, 1922, gave an opportunity of reply, and then corrected the mistaken promotion. Mistakes in promotion may be rectified in accordance with law, and the action taken was consistent with the statutory rules and principles of fair procedure.

Conclusion: The cancellation of promotion and reversion order was legally valid.

Final Conclusion: The statutory eligibility requirement prevailed over the mistaken promotion, the relaxation power was not wrongly withheld, and the impugned orders were set aside only to the limited extent necessary to permit the respondent to continue till retirement while his service was treated as that of an Accountant for retiral purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: A promotion made contrary to mandatory recruitment rules can be corrected after notice, and a discretionary relaxation clause cannot be used to perpetuate an error in the absence of legally relevant grounds for relaxation.

---