Executive discretion to relax eligibility criteria cannot be judicially compelled to grant antedated seniority.

The Petitioner participated in the Engineering Service Examination, 2008, and was placed at S. No. 1 on the waiting list. While lower-ranked candidates (private respondents) were appointed between 2010 and 2011, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director (AD) only on September 3, 2012

Seniority lists for the AD post in 2013 and 2016 correctly reflected his merit position above the private respondents but also recorded his actual date of joining as 2012, which the Petitioner did not challenge at that time

Due to the delayed joining, the Petitioner lacked the four years of regular service required for promotion to Deputy Director (DD) when his juniors were promoted in 2014. Although granted a one-year relaxation, he was promoted to DD only on June 18, 2015. He challenged his seniority in the DD grade via OA 1325/2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which was dismissed

1. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to an antedated seniority in the grade of Deputy Director (DD) despite joining as Assistant Director (AD) significantly later than his juniors.

2. Whether the Court can compel the executive to exercise discretionary powers of relaxation under service rules to grant retrospective seniority.

Rule 17 of the Central Power Engineering (Group-A) Service Rules, 2005, regarding the power to relax qualifying service requirements

Principle of finality in administrative actions, noting that unchallenged joining dates and subsequent seniority lists acquire legal finality over time

Doctrine of executive discretion, establishing that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel an authority to exercise a discretionary power of relaxation in the absence of a mandatory statutory obligation

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner’s failure to agitate against his 2012 joining date at the relevant time meant that his seniority in the AD grade had attained finality. Consequently, by the time promotions to DD occurred in 2014, the respondents had completed the four-year eligibility criteria while the Petitioner had not

Even if the maximum permissible relaxation under the rules were applied to the Petitioner, he would still not have qualified for promotion in 2014 alongside his juniors. The Court emphasized that the seniority list for DD was correctly based on the actual dates of promotion

Regarding the Petitioner’s call for further relaxation, the Court held that since the power to relax rules is a matter of executive discretion, it cannot be judicially mandated unless the rules expressly command such a relaxation

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, finding no merit in the challenge to the seniority list which was prepared in accordance with the law based on promotion dates. The writ petition was dismissed with no orders as to costs