J.C. YADAV & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 20-02-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
J.C. YADAV & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
. "
. FEBRUARY 20, 1990 
B 
[K.N. SINGH, T.K. THOMMEN AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Haryana Service of Engineers Class I PWD (Public Health 
~
Branch) Rules, 1961: Rule 22-Power of Government to relax require-
ment of any of the Rules-Scope and interpretation of-Meaning of 
expression "in any particular case"--Whether power to grant relaxation 
c 
may be exercised in case of an :individual to remove hardship caused to 
him or to a number of individuals who all may be similarly placed-
Relaxation of requirement of Rule 6(b) granted to a group of indivi-
duals to meet a particular situation-Validity of. 
Words and Phrases-'ln particular case'-Meaning of. 
+
D 
The appointment and promotion to Class I Engineering Service in 
the State of Haryana are regulated by the Haryana Service of Engineers 
Class I PWD (Public Health Branch) Rules, 1961. Rule 5 provides for 
appointment to Class I Service, inter alia, by promotion from Class II 
Service. Rule 6(b) prescribed that no person shall be prdmoted unless 
).. 
E 
be bas completed eight years service in Class II and has passed profes-
sional examination to the d.epartment. Rule 22 confers power on the 
Government to relax any of the Rules it may consider necessary. 
The appellants and the contesting respondent were members of 
the Haryana Service of Engineers Class II in the Public Health Branch. 
F 
In 1971 the appellants were promoted to the post of Executive 
Engineers in the cadre of Class I service on ad hoc basis while the ..,, 
respondent was not considered for promotion. Later, a Committee con-
stituted under Rule 8 for selecting suitable candidates for promotion to 
Class I post, considered the names of the appellants and the respondent 
but did not find the respondent suitable. Hence it included the appel-
G 
lant's names only in the select list. The appellants did not possess the 
requisite minimum period of service o_f 8 years in Class II service 
but since no other suitable candidates were available, the Committee 
recj!mmended to the Govt. for granting relaxation to the appellants. ,._ 
The State Public Service Commission approved the recommendations. 
The State Government accepted the recommendations and appointed 
H 
the appellants to Class I service by a Notification dated May 3, 1973. 
470 
I 
·--'; 
-* 
' 
~ 
~-
J.C. YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA 
471 
The contesting respondent tiled a Writ Petition before the High 
Court challenging the validity of the appellants' promotion on the 
ground that since the appellants did not possess the requisite qualifica-
tion for promotion to Class I Service their promotions were contrary to 
rules. 
A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed. the petition holding 
that since the Government had relaxed Rule 6(b) in appellants' favour, 
their promotions were sustainable in law. On appeal, the Division 
Bench quashed the appellants' promotion on the ground that the State 
Government had no authority in law to grant relaxation to the. appel-
lants under ·Rule 22 in a general manner as the power of relaxation 
could be exercised only in individual cases to mitigate hardship caused 
to an individual. Hence the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the Appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Power to grant relaxation may be exercised in case of 
an individual to remove hardship being caused to him or to a number of 
individuals who all may be similarly placed. This power may also 
be exercised to meet a particular situation where on account of the 
operation of the rules hardship is being caused to a set of individual 
officers. [477G-H] 
2.1 Rule 22 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I PWD 
\Public Health Branch) Rules 1961 confers power on the Government to 
di.spense with or to relax the requirement of any of the Rules to the 
extent and with such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing 
with the case in just and equitable manner. The object and purpose of 
conferring this power on the Government is to mitigate undue hardship 
in any particular case. If the Rules cause undue hardship or operate in 
an inequitable manner, the State Government has power to dispense 
with or to relax the requirement of Rules. The Rule does not restrict the 
exercise of power to individual cases. The Government may in certain 
circumstances relax the requirement of Rules to meet a particular 
situation. [477A-BJ 
2.2; The expression "in any particular case" does not mean that 
the relaxation shou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.