Relaxation of Recruitment Rules and Diversion of Quotas are Matters of Policy Within the Employer's Absolute Discretion

The applicants are Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) under the Director General of Audit (Respondent No. 2) who qualified for the Departmental Examination for promotion to the post of Auditor

Under the Recruitment Rules (RR) of 2000, 50% of Auditor posts are filled by promotion (of which a portion is set apart for examination-qualified candidates) and 50% by direct recruitment (DR)

In 2022, a circular relaxed the RRs, increasing the promotion quota for exam-qualified candidates to 25%

The applicants sought a further relaxation—specifically the diversion of unfilled DR quota vacancies to the promotion quota—arguing that such relief was granted by the 1st Respondent in 2010 and 2020

They challenged Annexures A-12 and A-16, wherein the respondents refused this diversion and insisted on maintaining the distinct recruitment quotas

During proceedings, the respondents clarified that initial vacancy calculations were erroneous and that "Persons in Position" (PIP) actually exceeded the sanctioned strength

1. Whether the applicants have a legal right to demand a relaxation of Recruitment Rules or the diversion of unfilled direct recruitment vacancies to the promotion quota based on past precedents

2. Whether the respondents’ decision to maintain separate quotas for direct recruitment and promotion violates the fundamental rights of the applicants

The Tribunal applied the principle that relaxation of Recruitment Rules is a matter of policy and a discretionary power of the competent authority, not a vested right of the employee

The Supreme Court ruling in A.N. Sehgal & others v. Rajeram Sheoran & others regarding the right to be considered for promotion

The administrative principle that an employer is not legally bound to fill existing vacancies and that relaxation granted to one cadre (e.g., SAS passed officials) does not automatically entitle another cadre to similar benefits

The Tribunal reasoned that the power to grant relaxation under Rule 5 of the RRs is periodic and based on the prevailing needs of the department

It noted that the 1st Respondent had only granted such relaxations in specific years (2010 and 2020), which does not confer a permanent legal right upon the applicants to demand the same for subsequent years

Regarding the alleged 32 vacancies, the Tribunal accepted the respondents' clarification that these were calculated erroneously due to data lags; factually, the "Persons in Position" (34) already exceeded the sanctioned strength (32)

The Tribunal found that the decision to prioritize direct recruitment for its specific quota or to relax rules for SAS-qualified officials fell within the domain of executive policy

Since no recruitment rules were arbitrarily violated and PIP was in excess, no fundamental right to promotion was infringed

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, affirming that the diversion of vacancies is a policy decision and noticing that the cadre was already over-strength. No costs were awarded