No 58 of 1983
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India RK Garg and DK Garg for the Petitioner
VC Mahajan and LK Gupta for the Respondents
RANGANATH MISRA J
In this application under article 32 of the Constitution petitioner assails the order dated 5th September 1975 of his compulsory retirement from service with effect from 5th of December 1975 made under rule 56ji of the Fundamental Rules
The impugned order ran thus WHEREAS the Director of Audit Defence Services New Delhi appropriate authority is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so NOW THEREFORE in exercise of the powers con ferred by clause ji of rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules the Director of Defence Services appropriate authority hereby gives notice to Shri CD Ailawadi Audit Officer Defence Services that he having already attained the age of 50 years on the 22nd November 1969 shall retire from service with effect from the forenoon of the 4th of Decem ber 1975 or from the date of expiry of three months com puted from the date of the service of this notice on him whichever is later The petitioner has pleaded that he was efficient and had risen 785 from the rank of a Clerk to the post of Audit Officer in which he was confirmed with effect from 312
Accord ing to him he had clear and unblemished record of service
He had held independent charge of the senior post of Deputy Director of Audit and had been paid an additional amount of Rs 100 per month for the period
He also alleged that his character roll entries were excellent
According to him it was the obligation of the appropriate authority to review the petitioner s case six months before he attained the age of 50 or completed thirty years of service
Since no such review had been made or on the basis of review petitioner had not been retired he was entitled to continue upto the age of 58 which is the normal age of retirement
According to him all cases of premature compulsory retirement made during the emergency were reviewed in terms of the Govern ment circular of lOth of August 1978 but the representa tions made by the petitioner for the benefit of review in terms of the said circular were not heeded to and the peti tioner was therefore obliged to file the present petition
In the return to the rule nisi by the Director of Audit Defence Services it has been contended that the order of retirement was made in public interest after review of the petitioner s case
It has been stated in the said affidavit In the case of Shri Ailawadi the Committee after review of his complete record of service observed that his earlier services were of a very marginal nature and he earned some adverse reports later
The Committee therefore considering the quality of his work on the whole concluded that Shri Ailawadi was not fit to be retained in the public interest
The Appropriate Authority felt that his reports for the last few years were poor colourless and indicative of steady deterioration attributed to family problems and to his state of health
The Appropriate Authority also took into account his latest report for the year 1974 75 which assessed him as barely competent to hold an officer s post 
 The character roll entries have also been placed before the Court at the time of heating of this writ petition
We have checked the same and in particular those for five years prior to the date of the impugned order
In 1969 70 his ability was considered to be average
His thought and ex pression were said to be vague and rambling
Deterioration of his physical health was taken note of and the general assessment was that he was an average officer
In the fol lowing year the reviewing 786 authority after treating him to be an average officer en dorsed the following direction I am inclined to think that the entire report may be commu nicated to him and he must be told so to exert himself that he earns a more commendable report next year   This appears to have been shown to him and his signature had been taken on 381971
During the years 1972 73 1973 74 and 1974 75 he was branded as an average officer
In the last year it was indicated that his intelligence was of low order and though he was physically fit he was not mentally alert
It was also indicated that he was barely competent to hold an officer s post
In the report for a part of 1974 75 he was branded as poor and against the column of general assess ment  it was shown that he was not sure of himself
We have extracted entries from the character roll to meet the petitioner s contention that he had an excellent record of service
Mr DK Garg appearing for the petitioner has supple mented the arguments by a written note which has also been looked into
Petitioner does not challenge the validity of the rule nor does he allege that the order of compulsory retirement is the outcome of mala fides
An aggrieved civil servant can challenge an order of compulsory retirement on any of the following grounds as settled by several decisions of this Court i that the requisite opinion has not been formed or ii that the decision is based on collateral grounds or iii that it is an arbitrary decision
In Union of India vs Col JN Sinha  Anr 1971 1 SCR 791 this Court held that if the civil servant is able to establish that the order of compulsory retirement suffered from any of the above infirmities the Court has jurisdiction to quash the same
It is not disputed that compulsory retirement under rule 56j is not a punish ment as it does not take away any of the past benefits
Chopping off the dead wood is one of the important consider ations for invoking rule 56j of the Fundamental Rules
1n the instant case on the basis of the service record the Committee formed the requisite opinion that the petitioner had ceased to be useful and therefore should be retired prematurely
We do not think petitioner has been able to place 787 any satisfactory material for the contention that the deci sion was on collateral grounds
Once the opinion is reached on the basis of materials on record the order cannot be treated to be arbitrary
The service record of more than five years which we have perused shows that the higher officers under whom the petitioner had worked were different and different sets of reviewing officers had also made the entries
Therefore the reports must be taken to have re flected a appropriate and objective assessment of the per formance of the petitioner
The writ petition must accordingly fail and is there fore dismissed
There shall be no order as to costs
NPV Petition dismissed


Summary:
The appointment and promotion to Class I Engineering Service in the State of Haryana are regulated by the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I PWD Public Health Branch Rules 1961
Rule 5 provides for appointment to Class I Service inter alia by promotion from Class II Service
Rule 6b prescribed that no person shall be promoted unless he has completed eight years service in Class II and has passed professional examination to the department
Rule 22 confers power on the Government to relax any of the Rules it may consider necessary
The appellants and the contesting respondent were mem bers of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class II in the Public Health Branch
In 1971 the appellants were promoted to the post of Executive Engineers in the cadre of Class I service on ad hoc basis while the respondent was not consid ered for promotion
Later a Committee constituted under Rule 8 for selecting suitable candidates for promotion to Class I post considered the names of the appellants and the respondent but did not find the respondent suitable
Hence it included the appellant sant s names only in the select list
The appellants did not possess the requisite minimum period of service of 8 years in Class II service but since no other suitable candidates were available the Committee recommended to the Govt
for granting relaxation to the appellants
The State Public Service Commission approved the recommendations
The State Government accepted the recommendations and appointed the appellants to Class I service by a Notification dated May 3 1973
471 The contesting respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the validity of the appellants  promotion on the ground that since the appellants did not possess the requisite qualification for promotion to Class I Service their promotions were contrary to rules
A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition holding that since the Government had relaxed Rule 6b in appellants  favour their promotions were sustainable in law
On appeal the Division Bench quashed the appellants  promotion on the ground that the State Government had no authority in law to grant relaxation to the appellants under Rule 22 in a general manner as the power of relaxation could be exercised only in individual cases to mitigate hardship caused to an individual
Hence the appeal by special leave
Allowing the Appeal this Court HELD 1 Power to grant relaxation may be exercised in case of an individual to remove hardship being caused to him or to a number of individuals who all may be similarly placed
This power may also be exercised to meet a particu lar situation where on account of the operation of the rules hardship is being caused to a set of individual officers
477G H 2
I Rule 22 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I PWD Public Health Branch Rules 1961 confers power on the Government to dispense with or to relax the requirement of any of the Rules to the extent and with such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in just and equitable manner
The object and purpose of conferring this power on the Government is to mitigate undue hardship in any particular case
If the Rules cause undue hardship or operate in an inequitable manner the State Government has power to dispense with or to relax the requirement of Rules
The Rule does not restrict the exercise of power to individ ual cases
The Government may in certain circumstances relax the requirement of Rules to meet a particular situation
477A B 22
The expression in any particular case does not mean that the relaxation should be confined only to an individual case
One of the meanings of the expression particular means peculiar or pertaining to a specified person thing time or place not common or general
The meaning of the word particular  in relation to law means separate or special limited or specific
The word case  in ordinary usage means 472 event  happenings  situation  circumstances 
The expression case  in legal sense means a case  suit  or proceeding in Court or Tribunal 
Having regard to these meanings the expression in any particular case  would mean in a particular or pertaining to an event situation or circumstance
477C D 23
Rule 22 postulates relaxation of Rules to meet a particular event or situation if the operation of the Rules causes hardship he Scope of the said Rule is wide enough to confer power on the State Government to relax the re quirement of Rules in respect of an individual or class of individuals to the extent it may consider necessary dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner
477E F 24 The power of relaxation is generally contained in the rules with a view to mitigate undue hardship or to meet a particular situation
Many a time strict application of service rules create a situation where a particular individ ual or a set of individuals may suffer undue hardship and further there may be a situation where requisite qualified persons may not be available for appointment to the service
In such a situation the Government has power to relax requirement of rules
The state Government may in exercise of its powers issue a general order relaxing any particular rule with a view to avail the service of requisite officers
The relaxation even if granted in a general manner would enure to the benefit of individual officers
477F G 25 Rule 22 is a beneficial one
It must be construed in a liberal manner and should not be interpreted in a manner to defeat the very object and purpose of such power
A narrow construction would nullify Government s power of relaxing rules of meet a particular situation
480C Jit Singh  Ors
vs State of Punjab  Ors
  differed Ashok Gulati vs BS Jain  referred to
In the instant case the non availability of Class II officers in Engineering Department possessing the necessary and prescribed qualifications for promotion to Class I posed a problem for the State Government as on account of the large scale expansion of Engineering Department a number of posts in Class I service were lying vacant
A similar situa tion prevailed in the Building and Road Branch of Public Works Department
In the circumstances the State Government with a 473 view to meet the particular situation decided to relax the qualifying length of service to such officers who had com pleted four years of service in Class 1I
It therefore relaxed the requirement of Rule b to the extent that a member of Class II service having four years service was qualified for being considered for promotion in Class I service
These facts would clearly show that the relaxation had been granted to particular individuals with a view to meet the situation which was in public interest
There is no legal infirmity in the order of  relaxation
478D F 3
I If power of relaxation is exercised on extraneous consideration for oblique purposes or mala fide the Court has power to strike down the same but bona fide exercise of power of relaxation to meet a particular situation cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal
479A 32 Since the appellants were found suitable for promo tion by the screening committee the Commission and the State Government and as the contesting respondent was not found suitable even otherwise for promotion the State Government granted relaxation of Rule b in favour of the appellants
In such a situation it cannot be said that the power of relaxation under Rule 22 was exercised arbitrarily or that it caused hardship to any one
In the absence of relaxation there could be no promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and the officers who were found suitable would have suffered great hardship
Therefore the State Government with a view to meet the particular situation exercised its power of relaxation in appellants  favour
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there is no illegality in the appellants  promotion pursu ant to the relaxation granted by the State Government
480D E G H Ashok Gulati vs BS Jain AIR 1987 424 Jit Singh  Ors
vs State of Punjab  Ors
  and Ram Sarup vs State of Punjab 1979 1 SCC 168 referred to