CWP No. 3646 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3646 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 02 -02-2011 Brahm Dev Sharma ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.R.Rana , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner pleading that he be granted an exemption from clearing the departmental examination as has been granted to one Surat Singh Yadav. The grievance of the petitioner is that Rule 16 and 19 of Haryana Excise and Taxation Department (Group B) Service Rules, 1988 which are extracted hereunder grant the power to the Government to grant relaxation and exemption to any member from passing whole or any part of the examination. 16(1) Every member of the Service shall within two years of his appointment, pass the departmental examination in accordance with the syllabus and other conditions as specified in Appendix 'E' to these rules: Provided that in the case of persons appointed to CWP No. 3646 of 2010(O&M) 2 the service immediately before the issue of Punjab Government Excise and Taxation Department Notification No. 7249 E & T- II-64/1080, dated 8th February, 1965, period of passing the departmental examination shall be three years; 19 Where the Government is of the opinion that that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons.” The stand of the respondents is that Rule 16 has since been amended and the power to grant any exemption to an individual to pass a departmental examination stands withdrawn and the only provision now available is that the time for passing the departmental examination can be extended. Learned counsel for the petitioner then fell back on the provisions of Rule 19 to say that the power to relax is still available with the Government and thus it can be exercised in favour of the petitioner as has been done in the case of similarly situated person namely Surat Singh Yadav. He has placed reliance on judgment of this Court titled as Anand Kumar vs. The State of Haryana reported as 1992(1)SCT On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there is absolutely no occasion to grant the exemption to the petitioner in view of the specific amendment carried out to the Rules and the power under Rule 19 cannot be exercised qua an individual and pertains only to class or category of persons. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petition is without any merit. By virtue of the CWP No. 3646 of 2010(O&M) 3 notification dated 25.2.2010 Rule 16 stands amended and the period of two years as provided in the said rule for clearing the examination stand extended to three years. While the first proviso stands omitted and Rule 16 (b)(2) also stands omitted while in sub-rule (3) unless exempted words have been omitted. The impact of the amendment is thus that the power to exempt any person from clearing examination stands withdrawn and only the period of clearing such an examination stands extended. The intent is thus clear that the respondents do not want any person to be promoted unless departmental examination has been cleared. Learned counsel for the petitioner while falling back on the argument that Rule 19 should have been invoked has not been able to convince this Court on this score as well as a bare perusal of this rule reflects only a limited power with the Government to relax in case of a class or a category. There are thus two situations envisaged by Rule 16 and 19 that in the case of individuals, Government does not have the power to exempt or relax the condition of passing of the departmental examination whereas the time for passing such an examination has been extended. In so far as Rule 19 is concerned as observed earlier it pertains to relaxation granted to class or category of person considering certain eventualities that a given class or category of person may face or may be required to overcome in order to enable them to be considered for promotion which eventualities are to be justified by the Government, while exercising the power to relax. The plea of the petitioner that a similarly situated person has been granted the benefit even after amendment does not have any force for the simple reason that if a benefit which is wrongly granted to an individual then an incumbent cannot enforce this negative exercise of power CWP No. 3646 of 2010(O&M) 4 in his favour to plead discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is no reason to grant the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, dismissed. February 2 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge