IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP -T No.2543/2008 Reserved on:9.9.2009 Decided on:17.9. 2009 ________________________________________________ Sansar Chand Awasthi and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioners : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General ________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge . The petitioners have joined the Police Department as per the details given in para 6 (1) of the petition. All of them are matriculates. The seniority list of Inspectors as it stood on 1.1.2005 was circulated on 1.3.2005. They are confirmed Inspectors. The post of Inspector is in feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The recruitment to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service is 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 regulated under the Himachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules’ for brevity sake). The method of recruitment is provided under rule 6 of the Rules which reads thus: “6. Method of recruitment:- (1) Recruitment to the service shall be made in the following manner:- (a) 40 percent by direct recruitment, and (b) 60 percent from Substantive Inspectors who have passed the upper School Course from Police Training College and have two years continuous service, in the rank of Inspector (both officiating and substantive), Provided their minimum educational qualification is B.A.) (2) For purpose of calculating vacancies according to the percentages as prescribed in sub-rule (1), the duty posts held either substantively or on probation in a regular manner before the commencement of these rules by Himachal Pradesh police Service Officers, hall be excluded. Provided that the post available against direct quota on the commencement of these rules, shall be filled over a period of four years. (3) Appointment to the service shall be subject to the orders regarding reservation in services for Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes/Backward Classes issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government from time to time.” It is evident from the bare perusal of rule 6 that the recruitment is to be made 40% by way of direct recruitment and 60% from substantive Inspectors, who have passed the upper school course from the Police Training College and have two years continuous service, in the rank of Inspector, provided their minimum educational qualification is B.A. The educational qualification of B.A. has been 3 inserted by way of amendment which was carried vide notification dated 11.11.1994. The petitioners’ precise case is that though they are matriculates, the State Government has taken a decision in the year 2004 to give relaxation to the confirmed Inspectors in educational qualification. In other words, according to the petitioners, the persons who are only matriculates were made eligible to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The case of the State, in nutshell, is that it was an extraordinary circumstance. According to the State since sufficient graduates were not available, the relaxation was given in the educational qualification. According to the contents of the reply, the petitioners were also considered but their names could not be recommended even after giving the relaxation for the recruitment which took place in the year 2004. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently argued that once one time relaxation under sub rule (1) (b) of rule 6 of the Rules has been accorded, the same was applicable for successive recruitment years. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that only one time relaxation was given by invoking rule 22 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1973 due to extraordinary circumstance since few Inspectors having B.A. qualification were available in the year 2004. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioners are confirmed Inspectors. The method of recruitment has been prescribed under rule 6. The educational 4 qualification of B.A. has been inserted by way of amendment, as noticed above. The one time relaxation has been given in the year 2004. The names of the petitioners were also sent to the State Government for consideration for the post of Superintendent of Police. Though they were considered, however, due to shortage of vacancies, they could not be promoted. The State Government thereafter convened the Departmental Promotion Committee on 27.11.2006 for filling up the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Since the petitioners were not possessing the minimum qualification under the rules, their cases could not be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The submission of Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate that one time relaxation was also applicable to all the successive recruitment years in future cannot be accepted. It was due to extraordinary circumstance that the State Government had resorted to relaxation by invoking rule 22 of the Rules. In the year when the relaxation clause was invoked, the petitioners were also considered though they were only matriculates. The very purpose of inserting of educational qualification will be defeated if the matriculate candidates are considered though graduate candidates are available. In the year 2004, only 15 Inspectors were promoted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of police. The Departmental Promotion Committee on 27.11.2006 has considered the names of 67 Inspectors, including the Deputy Superintendents of Police. It has come in the reply that after 2004, no relaxation has been given in the educational qualification and the posts of Deputy Superintendents of Police are being filled up on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee chaired by the Chairman of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission 5 under the Himachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1973. The petitioners cannot claim relaxation as a matter of right. It is settled law by now that there can be no relaxation of the basic fundamental recruitment rules. There can be relaxation at the most in conditions of service of an employee (See: 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 575, (1993) SCC, 486 and (1994) 2 SCC 600). The minimum educational qualification is a prerequisite and generally this should not be relaxed. It is made clear that expression “any of the provisions of the rules” contained in rule 22 cannot be invoked to relax the recruitment rules. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the State Government is well advised not to relax the recruitment rules in future, more particularly, essential educational qualification. The relaxation granted in the year 2004 was one time relaxation and cannot be stretched to successive recruitment years. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed (Rajiv Sharma), J. 17.9. 2009. *awasthi*