Calcutta High Court: The Court rejected the Contention that only because
there were no persons in the department, therefore, the private
respondent should have been treated as a “class” or “category of
persons” for the purpose of relaxation. The Relaxation made in the Rules
by the Lieutenant Governor granted to a particular individual in
reference to the basic qualification for Relaxation or Recruitment
rules that indicates such benefit of being trained is only to be given
to in-service candidates. The inservice candidate means persons who are
in service but who are qualified and eligible to take part in the
training. The private respondent being a plain Arts Graduate, though
being an in -service person, cannot be said to have been eligible to
undertake the training at all. The Court observed that in reference to
the basic qualification for Relaxation Rule 4(3) brought on record that
Relaxation or Recruitment Rules is to be restored to in respect of a
class or category of persons. Relaxation should not be restored to in
respect of an individual except in cases where an individual can be
treated as a Class or Category of persons. Even upon a perusal of the
said Rule 4 (3) it is thus evident that relaxation can be resorted to
only in respect of a “class” or “category of persons” but not in respect
of an individual except in cases where an individual can be treated as
“class” or “category of persons.” (Raj Kumar v. Lieutenant Governor, WP
No.023 of 2012, decided on July 17, 2012).
