IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.12066 of 2008 Decided on: August 25, 2011 Kashmiru Ram ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner had been serving as Inspector of Police with the State of H.P. Inspectors, as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, used to be promoted as Dy. SPs against certain percentage of posts of Dy. S.Ps. Rules provided that for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P., an Inspector should possess educational qualification of graduation. Petitioner was only matriculate. He made a representation, copy Annexure A2, on 27.4.2001, for relaxation of eligibility condition, regarding educational qualification, as had been done earlier in the year 2000, in the case of one Man Singh, Inspector. His (petitioner’s) Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É representation was recommended by the Director General of Police to the Secretary (Home), vide letter, copy Annexure A-3, which is dated 16.10.2001. No action was taken thereon by the Secretary (Home). In the meanwhile, in October, 2001, petitioner retired, on attaining the age of superannuation. 2. Present petition was filed by the petitioner before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal in the year 2005 or say about 4 years after his retirement. Petition was filed after his representation was rejected and the decision conveyed to him, vide Annexure A-6 which is dated 15.12.2004. Petitioner sought relief in the nature of issuance of a direction to the respondents to relax the condition of educational qualification and promote him to the post of Dy. S.P. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have taken the plea that relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 5. It is true that relaxation in the rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a government servant, but when one employee is being granted relaxation and the other one, situated in similar circumstances, is denied, then this would be a case of discrimination and arbitrariness. É3É However, in the present case relaxation was applied for by the petitioner on 27.4.2001 or say only six months before his superannuation and before any decision was taken on his representation, he superannuated. Because of the superannuation before disposal of his representation, now the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion and, thus, the petition has become infructuous. It is disposed of as such. August 25, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.