C.W.P No. 4377 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 4377 of 2009 Date of decision : March 20, 2009 Sikander Singh Sangwan and another, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of respondent No.1 rejecting the prayer for the grant of relaxation in age to the petitioners who are working as Fisheries Officer so as to render them eligible to apply for the post of District Fisheries Officer by direct recruitment. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are over age by a small period; that the respondents did not advertise posts for direct recruitment for the last 15 years; that on three earlier occasions, namely, 1990, 1991 and 1994 similarly these posts had been advertised and C.W.P No. 4377 of 2009 ::2:: relaxation in age up to 45 years had been granted by the government; and most important, that the nature of qualifications prescribed was such that only in service candidates were eligible for appointment. He further argued that the reasons disclosed for rejecting the application for relaxation in age were arbitrary. It may be noticed here that three reasons which have been mentioned are, that; firstly, the rule of relaxation did not envisage grant of relaxation to an individual but only to a class or category of persons; secondly, that the petitioners could well be considered for promotion; and thirdly, the respondents felt it more appropriate that young talent from open market be considered eligible for direct recruitment so as to have a balanced mix between youth and experience. As per learned counsel for the petitioners there was no bar to the department giving an omnibus relaxation for in-service candidates and, thus, the first reason was no reason in the eyes of law. With regard to the second reason, counsel for the petitioners asserted that the rights which the petitioners may have for being considered for promotion would have no relevance to their claim to be considered for direct recruitment. With regard to the third reason, counsel for the petitioners argued that as noticed above, the qualifications prescribed were such that only in service candidates were eligible to apply. Needless to say, and as conceded by counsel for the petitioners, rule of relaxation provides a power and does not create a right in favour of the petitioners. Of-course, all decisions have to be judged on the anvil of non-arbitrariness and, thus, the only ground for interfering with the exercise of power like the power of relaxation can be an arbitrary treatment of a request or a decision which is influenced by extraneous considerations. C.W.P No. 4377 of 2009 ::3:: In my opinion, even though the argument with regard to the first and second reasons cannot be termed to be far fetched, yet the third reason would by itself constitute adequate basis for the decision which has been taken. Counsel for the petitioners has fairly conceded that the petitioners are not making any allegation with respect to any extraneous consideration having entered into the mind of respondent No.1. However, as per his argument, even the third reason is clearly arbitrary. At the first instance without issuing notice of motion, I requested learned Senior Deputy Advocate General Haryana to find out as to whether any person from the open market had applied for these three vacancies. He has found out the details and has informed the Court that for these three posts there were a total of 18 applicants out of which four were from the persons who were not in service and were from the market. In my opinion, this fact is a complete mitigation of the argument of counsel for the petitioners regarding arbitrariness of the third reason on the ground that the prescribed qualifications are such that only in service candidates can apply. Consequently, the decision of respondent No.1 in not granting relaxation in age to the petitioners cannot be termed to be so arbitrary as to warrant interference under the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 20, 2009. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 4377 of 2009 ::4::