Promotions are valid where the State Government lawfully relaxes eligibility requirements in consultation with the Public Service Commission.

The petitioner was appointed as a Fisheries Officer in 2006. Under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 6 May 2016, 67% of the posts of Assistant Director of Fisheries were to be filled by promotion and 33% by direct recruitment. Promotion required, inter alia, a B.Sc. in Zoology or Fisheries Science, or a one-year diploma/certificate course in the prescribed field, along with five years’ service in the relevant grade.

Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 possessed nine-month certificates in Inland Fisheries Operatives obtained from the Regional Training Centre, Agra, rather than the prescribed one-year course. The petitioner challenged their proposed consideration for promotion, contending that they lacked the requisite qualification and that he was eligible for promotion.

The State Government processed a proposal to relax the remaining three months of the prescribed training requirement. After consultation with and approval by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission under Rule 18 of the R&P Rules, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who were promoted as Assistant Directors of Fisheries in September 2019. They subsequently retired on 31 March 2021.

The petitioner became eligible for promotion on 27 May 2019, after the relaxation had been approved on 5 April 2019.

1. Whether respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who possessed only nine-month certificates, could validly be considered and promoted after relaxation of the prescribed one-year educational qualification under Rule 18 of the R&P Rules.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration or promotion merely because he became eligible on 27 May 2019, after the respondents’ relaxation had been approved and their cases had been processed.

3. Whether the relaxation granted by the State Government was legally sustainable in the absence of the prescribed qualification.

Rule 11 of the R&P Rules prescribed the educational and service qualifications for promotion to Assistant Director of Fisheries.

Rule 18 empowered the State Government, where necessary or expedient, to relax any provision of the Rules for any class or category of persons or posts, provided reasons were recorded in writing and the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was consulted.

The Court relied on K.K. Khosla v. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 SCC 199, and the principles considered therein from J.C. Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 SCC 189, for the proposition that a promotion is not legally infirm where the competent Government authority validly exercises an express power of relaxation under the applicable service rules.

The Court distinguished Himakshi v. Rahul Verma & Others, Civil Appeal No. 5942 of 2023, 2026 INSC 391, observing that relaxation requires reasons to be assigned; that requirement was satisfied in the present case.

The Court held that although respondents Nos. 3 and 4 did not initially possess the prescribed one-year course, Rule 18 expressly authorized relaxation of the qualification. Their cases were processed by the Administrative Department, referred to the Department of Personnel, and placed before the HPPSC, which approved relaxation of the remaining three months before the DPC considered their candidature.

The reasons included their approximately 30–32 years of departmental service, the fact that their nine-month training had been undertaken when the course requirement was different, and the absence of such a qualification requirement in the pre-2016 Rules.

The Court further found that the petitioner had no enforceable claim against the respondents’ consideration because he became eligible only on 27 May 2019, whereas the relaxation had already been approved on 5 April 2019, when he was not eligible for consideration.

Since the prescribed procedure was followed and the relaxation was approved in consultation with the HPPSC, the promotions could not be invalidated merely because the respondents initially lacked the full prescribed qualification.

The petitioner’s challenge and claim for promotion were rejected, and CWPOA No. 3074 of 2019 was dismissed without costs. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.