The judgment established that denial of relaxation of subject requirements, resulting in unequal treatment, amounts to arbitrariness and violates Art.14, ensuring fairness and equality of treatment.

Going by the relevant provisions of the K.E.R. the subject requirements insisted upon can be said to be satisfied only if the appointee is a Graduate with Mathematics main.

2. As there was a dearth of graduates with Mathematics main, the Government relaxed the qualifications (see G.O.(M.S) 57/75, dated 13th February 1975) and permitted managers to fill up the posts of Mathematics teacher provided the conditions stipulated in the G.O. are strictly complied with. As per this G.O. a Degree holder with Physics main and Mathematics subsidiary could be appointed as Mathematics teacher.

3. Though the petitioner was holding a degree with Chemistry main and Physics subsidiary with B. Ed, with Natural Science and Physical Science only, she was appointed as the Mathematics teacher by the manager. Approval of this appointment sought for therefore was not accorded by the Department. The revision taken from the said order by the manager was rejected. The manager thereafter filed a review application which stands rejected by Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 is under challenge in the O.P.

4. Certain facts are admitted and they are: The petitioner and those who are the beneficiaries of Exts. P3 and P3(a) orders, admittedly do not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as Mathematics teachers. The Department therefore had rejected the applications of the Managers seeking approval of the appointments. The managers of the schools where persons mentioned in Exts.P3 and P3(a) were working therefore applied to this Government and sought approval of the appointment after relaxing the subject requirement insisted upon by the Rules and the Government Orders mentioned

above. The Government accepted the request as is seen from Exts.P3 and P3(a). Though the petitioner is similarly situated, the request made on her behalf to relax the rigour of the Rules by the manager however, was rejected (vide Ext.P4)

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also entitled to get her appointment approved by relaxing the subject requirements insisted upon by the Government Orders and the Rules as she is similarly situated as those persons made mention of in Exts.P3 and ?3(a). The denial of the request for relaxation of the subject requirement, has resulted in equals being treated unequally. It should therefore be said that arbitrariness is writ large on Ext. P4 order. Wherever there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or the executive or the authority under Art.12, as observed by the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia's case (AIR 1981 S.C. 487) Art 14 immediately springs into action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. Fundamental right guaranteed under Art.14, it is by now a well established principle, cannot be waived by a citizen and if that be the position a case supported by the plea based on Art.14 cannot be refused on the genuine ground of laches. (See S.S. Deodar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1974 S.C. 259). The petitioner therefore is well founded in her submission that she is also entitled to the benefit conferred on persons made mention of in Exts. PS & P3(a) because they admittedly are similarly situated as the petitioner. I therefore am of the view that the reliefs prayed for in the O.P. require to be granted.

6. The above position notwithstanding the learned Government Pleader very vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit aforesaid because the management has not established that the requirements prescribed under G.O. (MS.) 57/75 and 230/76 have been complied with while appointing' the petitioner as Mathematics teacher. These two Government Orders admittedly do not cover the claims of persons who are the holders of Degrees with Chemistry main and Physics subsidiary. There is no dispute about it. These Government Orders therefore will not govern the case of the petitioner and the teachers mentioned in Exts. P3 and P3(a). If that be the position the claim of