Authorities must fairly and objectively reconsider relaxation claims by assessing genuinely comparable cases.

The applicant, initially serving as a Special Police Officer, was appointed as a Follower in the J&K Police Department by Order No. 1327/1999 dated 26 November 1999.

He claimed that, after completing the requisite service, he sought conversion as a Constable in 2003, but his case was not accepted because of a marginal deficiency in the prescribed height.

His case was repeatedly processed or forwarded by departmental authorities between 2005 and 2012, but no final favourable decision was taken.

Police Headquarters rejected his claim through communication No. Pers-M-1-2021-78306 dated 28 December 2021, stating that similar cases seeking height relaxation had earlier been rejected.

The applicant challenged the rejection under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking conversion as Constable with retrospective effect from 2003 and consequential benefits.

1. Whether the communication dated 28 December 2021 rejecting the applicant’s claim for conversion as Constable was sustainable without examining the earlier processing of his case, the effect of departmental delay, and the comparable cases relied upon by him?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to a direct direction for relaxation of the prescribed height and age requirements and conversion as Constable with effect from 2003?

3. Whether the respondents were required to provide the applicant fair and equal consideration if the persons relied upon by him were similarly situated and had received relaxation under an applicable rule or policy?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that appointment or conversion to a post carrying prescribed eligibility conditions is not an absolute right, and that relaxation of eligibility requirements ordinarily cannot be claimed as a matter of course.

However, discretionary powers exercised by public authorities must conform to fairness, consistency, and the constitutional principle against arbitrary discrimination; comparable cases relied upon by an applicant must be examined and materially distinguished if different treatment is proposed.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that equality does not require repetition of an illegality, but an authority cannot assert an absolute prohibition against relaxation while granting relaxation in genuinely comparable cases.

The respondents relied on Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State & Ors. to contend that relaxation of recruitment standards had been discontinued, but the Tribunal held that the applicant’s specific instances of later relaxation required proper examination rather than rejection by general assertion.

The Tribunal held that it could not itself grant height or age relaxation or order automatic conversion, since those matters fell within the statutory or policy discretion of the competent authority.

Nevertheless, the impugned communication did not adequately consider the applicant’s earlier departmental representations and repeated processing, the effect of delay on the age objection, the exact extent of his height deficiency, or the specific cases in which relaxation had allegedly been granted.

The applicant’s reliance on Government Orders of 2022 and other instances could not be rejected merely on the general ground that relaxation was no longer granted; the authority had to determine whether those cases were governed by the same or a comparable policy and whether the applicant was similarly situated.

Accordingly, the rejection was procedurally and substantively incomplete, although the Tribunal declined to determine the applicant’s ultimate eligibility or entitlement to retrospective conversion.

Communication No. Pers-M-1-2021-78306 dated 28 December 2021 was set aside insofar as it rejected the applicant’s claim without a comprehensive examination.

The competent authority was directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim strictly under the applicable rules and policy, specifically examining his eligibility when the case was originally processed, the official height record, the effect of departmental delay on the age objection, the earlier departmental communications, and the comparable cases cited by him.

If those persons were found similarly situated and their relaxation had been granted under a policy applicable to the applicant, equivalent consideration was to be accorded to him.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not directed the grant of relaxation, automatic conversion, or retrospective monetary benefits.

A reasoned and speaking order was required to be passed and communicated within 12 weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

The question of the effective date of any eventual conversion and consequential benefits was left to the competent authority under the applicable rules and law.