Judgment :- Going by the relevant provisions of the K.E.R. the subject requirements insisted upon can be said to be satisfied only if the appointee is a Graduate with Mathematics main. 2. As there was a dearth of graduates with Mathematics main, the Government relaxed the qualifications (see G.O.(M.S) 57/75, dated 13th February 1975) and permitted managers to fill up the posts of Mathematics teacher provided the conditions stipulated in the G.O. are strictly complied with. As per this G.O. a Degree holder with Physics main and Mathematics subsidiary could be appointed as Mathematics teacher. 3. Though the petitioner was holding a degree with Chemistry main and Physics subsidiary with B. Ed, with Natural Science and Physical Science only, she was appointed as the Mathematics teacher by the manager. Approval of this appointment sought for therefore was not accorded by the Department. The revision taken from the said order by the manager was rejected. The manager thereafter filed a review application which stands rejected by Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 is under challenge in the O.P. 4. Certain facts are admitted and they are: The petitioner and those who are the beneficiaries of Exts. P3 and P3(a) orders, admittedly do not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as Mathematics teachers. The Department therefore had rejected the applications of the Managers seeking approval of the appointments. The managers of the schools where persons mentioned in Exts.P3 and P3(a) were working therefore applied to this Government and sought approval of the appointment after relaxing the subject requirement insisted upon by the Rules and the Government Orders mentioned above. The Government accepted the request as is seen from Exts.P3 and P3(a). Though the petitioner is similarly situated, the request made on her behalf to relax the rigour of the Rules by the manager however, was rejected (vide Ext.P4) 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also entitled to get her appointment approved by relaxing the subject requirements insisted upon by the Government Orders and the Rules as she is similarly situated as those persons made mention of in Exts.P3 and ?3(a). The denial of the request for relaxation of the subject requirement, has resulted in equals being treated unequally. It should therefore be said that arbitrariness is writ large on Ext. P4 order. The denial of the request for relaxation of the subject requirement, has resulted in equals being treated unequally. It should therefore be said that arbitrariness is writ large on Ext. P4 order. Wherever there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or the executive or the authority under Art.12, as observed by the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia's case (AIR 1981 S.C. 487) Art 14 immediately springs into action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. Fundamental right guaranteed under Art.14, it is by now a well established principle, cannot be waived by a citizen and if that be the position a case supported by the plea based on Art.14 cannot be refused on the genuine ground of laches. (See S.S. Deodar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1974 S.C. 259). The petitioner therefore is well founded in her submission that she is also entitled to the benefit conferred on persons made mention of in Exts. PS & P3(a) because they admittedly are similarly situated as the petitioner. I therefore am of the view that the reliefs prayed for in the O.P. require to be granted. 6. The above position notwithstanding the learned Government Pleader very vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit aforesaid because the management has not established that the requirements prescribed under G.O. (MS.) 57/75 and 230/76 have been complied with while appointing' the petitioner as Mathematics teacher. These two Government Orders admittedly do not cover the claims of persons who are the holders of Degrees with Chemistry main and Physics subsidiary. There is no dispute about it. These Government Orders therefore will not govern the case of the petitioner and the teachers mentioned in Exts. P3 and P3(a). If that be the position the claim of the petitioner for approval of her appointment also requires to be considered without making any reference to these Government Orders as was done in the case of those teachers who are the beneficiaries of Exts. P3and'P3(a) orders. As to what exactly was the reason to pass these special orders Exts. P3 and P3(a) is not stated either in these orders or in the counter affidavit. It has merely been binned that they are very special cases. P3and'P3(a) orders. As to what exactly was the reason to pass these special orders Exts. P3 and P3(a) is not stated either in these orders or in the counter affidavit. It has merely been binned that they are very special cases. A reference in this connection to the following excerts from the counter affidavit is profitable: "It is admitted that in certain cases Government have issued orders directing approval of appointments as very special cases. They cannot be applied in this case, since the Manager had represented the matter only after 8 years. It is not proper to reopen settled case". 7. From the above statement it is clear that the Government was prepared to reopen the case of the petitioner had the management approached the Government within a period of one year. In other words the Government was prepared to relax the subject requirement provided the Manager had approached them within a reasonable time. The learned Government Pleader in this connection wanted this court to view the position from a different angle. According to him the Manager has not approached the Government for relaxation of the subject requirement at all. The revision and the review petition filed by the manager seeking approval of the appointment cannot be treated as application for relaxation of the Rules. I am not impressed by this argument. Whether the Manager approached the Government by filing a petition seeking relaxation of the rigour of the Government Orders or approached them by filing a revision or review petition for approval of the appointments, is irrelevant to be considered in the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is relevant in this context to note that the Government were aware of the fact that what the petitioner wanted was to have exempted in view of Exts. P3 & P3(a). Non consideration of this aspect by the Government while rejecting the request for relaxation of the subject requirement, in my view, has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Government ought to have bestowed its attention on the peculiar circumstances in which the appointment in question was made and accorded approval. It is all the more so because the Government have approved the appointments of persons made mention of the Exts. P3 and P3(a) as Mathematics teachers after relaxing the rule insisting of subject requirement. The Government ought to have bestowed its attention on the peculiar circumstances in which the appointment in question was made and accorded approval. It is all the more so because the Government have approved the appointments of persons made mention of the Exts. P3 and P3(a) as Mathematics teachers after relaxing the rule insisting of subject requirement. The O.P. in the light of the above discussion the original petition is allowed and the Government is directed to pass appropriate consequential orders according the approval sought for by relaxing the subject-requirement insisted upon by G.O.(MS.) 57/55 and 230/76 as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.