Relaxation of rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right and should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, and the power of relaxation is to be exercised discreetly by the government.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to grant age relaxation to the petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 for selection and appointment to the post of Conductor in the 1st Respondent Corporation for the recruitment year 2014-15.)

Common Order

1. The common relief sought for in the present writ petitions is to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant age relaxation to the petitioners in the light of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 for selection and appointment to the post of Conductor in the 1st Respondent Corporation for the recruitment year 2014-15.

2. Admittedly, the petitioners participated in the process of selection for appointment to the Post of Conductor.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners state that the petitioners are fully qualified for appointment. At the time of selection, the petitioners crossed the age of 35 years and therefore, they were disqualified after calling them for an interview.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that due to the ban for appointment imposed for five years, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 and as per the Government order, five years age relaxation is to be granted to the writ petitioners for selection and appointment to the post of Conductor.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the said contention by stating that, no doubt, there was a ban for appointment between the years 2001 to 2006 and the Government granted relaxation of another five years in respect of candidates, who lost five years on account of ban. Accordingly, the said Government Order was issued, granting relaxation of five years till 2011 and beyond the period of five years, the said relaxation cannot be applied for recruitment to the public services. The said Government Order was made applicable to all the appointments in various Departments including the Transport Department. The petitioners participated in the recruitment process of the year 2014. During the relevant point of time, maximum age limit fixed was 35 years. Admittedly, the petitioners crossed the age of 35 years at the time of selection process and therefore, they were disqualified. Therefore, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the rejection of the candidature of the writ petitioners for selection.

6. Relaxation can never be claimed as a matter of right. The power of relaxation is conferred on the Government for its exercise discreetly. The power of relaxation is to be exercised only on exceptional circumstances, if there is any gross injustice occurred to a person or a group of persons. Thus, relaxation cannot be granted in a routine manner. The High Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review cannot grant the relief of relaxation of rules under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the relaxation granted by way of a policy by the Government to compensate the ban period expired in the year 2011. Thus, the further relaxation sought for by the petitioners cannot be considered.

7. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.