The power of relaxation under Clause 113 of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board Service Regulations, 1996 allows the Board to mitigate undue hardship in any particular case to any person serving under the Board, subject to being done in a just and equitable manner.

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the validity of the Notification dated 31.03.2004 issued by the respondent No. 2, relaxing the qualifying service of two years as Superintending Engineer (Civil) for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer (Civil) and the promotion of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of Additional Chief Engineer (Civil).

2. The material facts for disposal of this writ petition are not in dispute. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Meghalaya State Electricity Board on 21.06.1976 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 18.04.1985 and was further promoted to the post of Executive Engineer under the same Board on 09.07.1984. The respondent No. 3 on the other hand, was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on 01.06.1996. In the final inter-se seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) which was published on 08.11.89, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 7 while in the inter-se seniority list of Executive Engineer (Civil) published on 18.06.97, his name found a place at serial No. 3 while the respondent No. 3 was placed at serial No. 7 and the respondent No. 4 at serial No. 12. In the year 2000, the respondent No. 3, who was admittedly junior to the petitioner, was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) by the order dated 22.08.2000. The petitioner challenged the said promotion order by filing a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 129(SH) 2001. By the order dated 25.01.2002, this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the promotion of the respondent No. 3 and further directed the respondents-Board to re-do the entire promotion process in accordance with law. The respondents preferred an appeal against this judgment before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1 (SH)2002, which was dismissed. The Special Leave Petition preferred before the Apex Court was also dismissed by the Apex Court in SLP No. 16260/2002.

3. Following the dismissal of the SLP by the Apex Court, the respondents by the order dated 12.09.2002 cancelled the promotion of the respondent No. 3, who was thereupon posted as Project Officer in terms of the order dated 16.09.2002. It appears that the respondents, by the office order dated 23.12.2002, created the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) for the petitioner, and by the order dated 23.12.2003 promoted him to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) with effect from 27.03.2002. Contending that the order of this Court was not fully complied with, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a contempt petition, which was registered as COP No. 17 (SH) 2002, but this Court disposed of the contempt petition by holding that if the petitioner was aggrieved by his non-promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) with effect from 22.08.2000 instead of 27.03.2002, it would be open to him to approach the authorities concerned for necessary action and might take up appropriate legal remedy if they failed to take appropriate action. In the meantime, the respondents issued the impugned Notification relaxing the qualifying service of two years as Superintending Engineer for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer as a special case to enable the Departmental Promotion Committee to recommend suitable officers for the vacant posts of Additional Chief Engineer (Civil). At this stage, it may be noted that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were, in the meantime promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) on 15.01.2003 vide the office orders dated 15.01.2003 and 23.04.2004 respectively. At this stage, it may also be observed that the petitioner, who had also by then been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) on 27.03.2002, was admittedly senior to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It was under the aforesaid circumstances that this writ petition came to be filed by t