Point of Law : The word used in the relaxation rules is "may" and therefore, the same would mean that relaxation may be given at the discretion of the competent authority.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. Lalremsanga Nghaka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 10. None appears for the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC).

2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioners were directly appointed to the Junior Grade of the Mizoram Finance and Accounts Service under the Finance Department on 08.09.2011 except for the petitioner No. 5, who was appointed on 02.05.2012. The private respondents were all appointed by promotion to the same Grade on 09.11.2010 after being selected through Limited Departmental Examination (LDE).

3. As per Rule 23 (2) of the Mizoram Finance and Accounts Service Rules, 2008 (Rules of 2008) which governs the service condition of all the petitioners and the private respondents, a member of the service in the Junior Grade is eligible for promotion to the Senior Grade after rendering regular service in the Junior Grade for a minimum period of 5 years subject to Rule 18. Rule 18 prescribes for departmental examination which is required to be cleared by all probationers. According to the petitioners, as they were recruited and appointed to the Junior Grade of the service alongwith the private respondents in the same vacancy year of 2009-2010, they ought to have been considered for promotion to the Senior Grade of the service. They are also one of the senior-most incumbents in the Junior Grade of the service alongwith the private respondents in the final seniority list notified on 14.07.2016. While it took about two months for conducting the LDE for promotion to the Junior Grade of the service, it took about 10 months to finalize the direct recruitment process to the said grade and for this reason, the petitioners claim that they should have been considered for promotion to the Senior Grade by invoking the relaxation clause provided by Rule 27 of the Rules of 2008. The same having not been done, they are before this Court challenging the Agenda Note and the attached documents sent to the MPSC and the rejection of their Representation and the promotion order of the private respondents.

4. Mr. Lalremsanga Nghaka, learned counsel submits that as per Rule 2(l) of the Rules of 2008, the definition of “year” is 12 months and therefore, the crucial date for considering promotion from Junior Grade to the Senior Grade of the Service should have been the first of January of the relevant year i.e. 2016. However, according to the State respondents, the crucial date was taken as 01.04.2016. If 01.01.2016 was taken as the crucial date, the petitioners would have been eligible to be considered for promotion to the Senior Grade of the service. He submits that even otherwise as Rule 27 of the Rules of 2008 provides for the relaxation clause and the State respondents in order to take care of the hardship faced by the petitioners, ought to have invoked the same for condoning the deficiency in the required length of service which is only for about four months. The learned counsel submits that the representation of the petitioner No. 1 dated 19.08.2016 submitted in this regard came to be rejected by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (General Service Wing) [DP&AR(GSW)] vide Communication dated 13.09.2016 made to the Finance Department. However, the Finance Commissioner vide his Communication dated 13.10.2016 wrote back asking the DP&AR (GSW) to re-examine the proposal for condoning the shortage in the required length of service of the petitioners for promotion to Senior Grade of the service. But again the same came to be rejected vide the impugned Communication dated 08.11.2016.

5. The learned counsel submits that in rejecting the proposal, the DP&AR(GSW) had quoted the DOPT guidelines dated 03.07.1986 and 04.03.2014 which otherwise are not relevant to the points raised by the