Relaxation of qualifying service and regularisation of irregular promotions upheld where hardship and later cure of deficiency were shown

A relaxation clause designed to prevent undue hardship may extend to a class of similarly placed officers where administrative need requires filling vacancies, and such relaxation is valid if it is neither arbitrary nor mala fide. The text also states that a promotion challenge based on supersession fails where the affected employee had no enforceable right to relief and was found unsuitable for promotion. It further explains that an irregular appointment, if not wholly void, may be regularised once the eligibility defect is cured before final adjudication, so the promotion cannot later be disturbed on that ground.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government had power under Rule 22 to relax the qualifying service requirement so as to promote the appellants; (ii) Whether the appellants' promotions were liable to be quashed on the ground that the respondent had been superseded without entitlement to relief; (iii) Whether the appellants' appointments stood regularised on completion of the requisite length of service during the pendency of the proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the Government had power under Rule 22 to relax the qualifying service requirement so as to promote the appellants.

Analysis: Rule 22 empowered the Government to dispense with or relax the requirements of the rules where their operation caused undue hardship in any particular case and to deal with the matter in a just and equitable manner. The expression "particular case" was construed broadly to include a particular situation or a class of similarly placed officers. The Court held that the rule was designed to mitigate hardship and could be used where suitable officers were otherwise unavailable and vacancies could not be filled without relaxation. The relaxation granted to the appellants was made to meet such a situation and was not shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to the object of the rule.

Conclusion: The relaxation granted under Rule 22 was valid and the appellants were not ineligible on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants' promotions were liable to be quashed on the ground that the respondent had been superseded without entitlement to relief.

Analysis: The respondent had been considered by the Selection Committee but was found unsuitable for promotion. Since no legal right of the respondent was infringed, the quashing of the appellants' promotions could not be sustained merely on the basis of a broad reading of the relaxation power. The earlier view that general relaxation was impermissible was not accepted, and the challenge to the promotions was held to be unsustainable in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The quashing of the appellants' promotions was unjustified.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellants' appointments stood regularised on completion of the requisite length of service during the pendency of the proceedings.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that an appointment made irregularly, but not wholly void, may stand regularised when the deficiency is subsequently cured. As the appellants had completed eight years' service before the Division Bench set aside their promotions, their appointment could no longer be disturbed on that ground.

Conclusion: The appellants' promotions stood regularised and could not be set aside thereafter.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the Division Bench order was set aside, and the order dismissing the writ petition was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A relaxation clause framed to prevent undue hardship may be applied to a class of similarly placed officers to meet a particular administrative situation, and an irregular promotion may be sustained once the deficiency in eligibility is subsequently cured before final adjudication.

---