IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 285 of 2011. Decided on: February 21, 2011. Churu Ram Versus State of H.P. & Ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG, with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- A) That the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to work as regular beldar as per the order dated 04-02- 2010 by which the service of the petitioner service were regularized and also regularize his service with all consequential benefits from the date when he actually deserved to be regularized in the year 1998. B) That the office order dated 08-10-2010 may kindly quash and set aside being unjustifiable, unreasonable and unconstitutional. C) That the condition of minimum qualification of 5th passed for the regularization of beldar may kindly be quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents to delete it from the R&P rules in the interest of natural justice.” 2. At the time of engaging the petitioner as beldar on daily waged basis, the qualification of passing 5th standard was not insisted. The petitioner has apparently rendered service satisfactorily for quite a few years. Thereafter, the petitioner has been regularized in service. But as per the impugned order the regularization has been withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the required qualification of passing 5th standard. In several cases, this court has directed the Government to re-examine that question, if necessary by invoking the power to relax the rules. After all the post that is offered to the petitioner is only that of beldar and in the very same post he has rendered service for a few years. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the Government examines the case of the petitioner as to whether in terms of equity and justice it is not a fit 2 case for relaxation. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to examine afresh the matter for relaxation of the rules. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. February 21, 2011. ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), (karan/vs) Judge.