ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Office Order No. 414 dated 23-11-1998 (Annexure-P-2) whereby respondent No. 3 has been promoted and appointed to the post of Additional Director in the pay scale of Rs. 16400-20000/- and the petitioner has been deprived of the promotion to the said post of Additional Director in spite of the fact that he is eligible for promotion to the said post. 2. At the threshold it would be relevant to mention that during the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner has already been granted promotion on the basis of recommendation of the Assessment and approval of the Standing Committee to the post of Additional Director w.e.f. 28-8-2001 vide order dated 24-9-2001. Thus the question that remains to be decided in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for promotion with retrospective effect i.e. from 23-11-1998 as prayed by him. 3. Several averments have been made in the petition in order to invite attention of this Court that Central Power Research Institute (for brevity, 'CPRI') would come under the ambit and sweep of the definition of "State" as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, the respondents in their return have not disputed this position that CPRI being an autonomous body is registered under the Societies Act and is controlled by the Central Government in regard to policy, fiscally, administratively and policy-wise. Therefore, it comes within the definition of "State" as enshrined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 4. The case of petitioner is that he is working on the post of Joint Director since November, 1991 at Switch Gear Testing and Development Station, Bhopal of CPRI. Its Head Office is at Bangalore, headed by Director General. The appointing authority for Class 'A' Officers is Secretary (Power) and President, CPRI. As per the Assessment Promotion Scheme of CPRI, a candidate completing 5 years service shall have four chances of assessment: first at the end of the eligibility period; second after one year; third after 2 years and the last chance after remaining at the top of the scale for one year. In that regard Rule 11(b) of the Rules, namely, CPRI (Pay, Recruitment and Promotion) Rules, 1989 (Working Rule No. 1) (in short 'Rules of 1989') has been reproduced in the petition. In that regard Rule 11(b) of the Rules, namely, CPRI (Pay, Recruitment and Promotion) Rules, 1989 (Working Rule No. 1) (in short 'Rules of 1989') has been reproduced in the petition. The contention of Mrs. Menon, learned senior counsel is that a Joint Director becomes eligible to be considered for promotion as Additional Director after completion of 5 years of his service as Joint Director. She has also putforth that the Assessment Committee for promotion meets every year and a candidate is offered 3 chances consecutively. In case he is not found suitable in these three chances, he becomes debarred for being considered in subsequent years until he reaches the maximum of the scale of Joint Director and has completed one year at that stage i.e. maximum pay scale of Joint Director. 5. It has been canvassed by learned senior counsel that respondent No. 3 faced the Assessment Committee in the years 1995, 1996 and 1997, and was not found eligible for 3 years for three times and, therefore, he (respondent No. 3) could be only considered after he reached the maximum of the scale of Joint Director and has completed one year in that scale. This scale, he would have reached after 5 to 6 years. Therefore, action of his calling for selection before the Assessment Committee in the year 1998 was in flagrant violation of Rule 11 (b) of the Rules of 1989. 6. It has been proponed by learned senior counsel that the petitioner was called for assessment for promotion to the post of Additional Director for the first time in September, 1997 when he became eligible for promotion, but he was not promoted. He was again called for assessment promotion for second time on 30th July, 1998 along with other five candidates including respondent No. 3, who (respondent No. 3) was found unsuitable in three attempts in succession. The contention is that had respondent No. 3 not been considered as per Rules of 1989, two slots were available for candidates in normal course and the Assessment Committee which met on 30th July, 1998 would have allegedly recommended 3 candidates including the petitioner, who was considered suitable for promotion as Additional Director. The contention is that had respondent No. 3 not been considered as per Rules of 1989, two slots were available for candidates in normal course and the Assessment Committee which met on 30th July, 1998 would have allegedly recommended 3 candidates including the petitioner, who was considered suitable for promotion as Additional Director. It has been vehemently argued by learned senior counsel that on account of invalid selection for promotion of respondent No. 3, one slot out of the two earmarked for candidates under normal course was, thus, taken over by him. 7. The petitioner represented to the appointing authority i.e. respondents 1 and 2 vide Annex.P-1 but the same was totally ignored and respondent No. 3 was appointed and promoted to the post of Addl. Director vide order Annex.P-2 dated 23-11-1998. On the basis of these premised submission it has been prayed that the order of promotion of respondent No. 3 (Annex.P-2) be quashed and it may be directed to promote petitioner to the post of Addl. Director. In support of her contention, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on following decisions :- i. Syed Khalid Rizvi and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 575 ; ii. J.C. Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1990) 2 SCC 189 ; iii Suraj Prakash Gupta vs. state of J & K (2000) 7 SCC 561 and iv. Ashok Kumar Uppal v. State of J & K, (1998) 4 SCC 79. 8. On the other hand, Shri O.P. Namdeo, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government by inviting my attention to the averments made in the return has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief's prayed by him as he has no legitimate right to be promoted. The chances of promotion are not service conditions. The review and assessment committee considered the case of petitioner along with others and after due, objective and impartial assessment, prepared select list in the order of merit i.e. Shri Ramesh Krishna Hegde (respondent No. 3), Shri A. Bhaskaran and Shri P.K. Kognolkar, the petitioner. The recommendations of review/assessment committee were considered by the Standing Committee and the committee resolved the promotion of Shri R. K. Hegde and Shri A. Bhaskaran to the post of Addl. Director and the petitioner was directed to be re-assessed after 31-3-1999. According to learned counsel for respondents there is nothing arbitrary in the selection process. The recommendations of review/assessment committee were considered by the Standing Committee and the committee resolved the promotion of Shri R. K. Hegde and Shri A. Bhaskaran to the post of Addl. Director and the petitioner was directed to be re-assessed after 31-3-1999. According to learned counsel for respondents there is nothing arbitrary in the selection process. No mala fide has been alleged on any of the members of the committee and in the absence of specific allegation by naming the member of the selection committee, petitioner has no valid ground to challenge the promotion. It has also been putforth by Shri Namdeo, learned counsel for respondents that the claim of promotion with retrospective date cannot be granted as these promotions are based on assessment/promotion scheme and not on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority. Shri Namdeo by inviting my attention to Rule 52 of the Rules has submitted that the Governing Council under this rule has power to relax, amend and repeal any or all of these rules and indeed this power was exercised in regard to accord promotion to respondent No. 3. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the cases of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K.K. Kalyana Raman and Others, AIR 1992 SC 1806 and B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute and Others, AIR 1984 SC 363 . 9. In order to appreciate rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to quote the relevant Rule 11(b) which reads thus :- 11. (b) Under the Assessment promotion scheme, an employee shall be allowed four chances, first at the end of the eligibility period, second after one year, third after two years, and the last chance after remaining at the top of the scale for one year. On going through the aforesaid provision it is clear as like a noon day that under the Assessment promotion scheme an employee shall be allowed 4 chances in regard to his promotion, first at the end of the eligibility period, second after one year, third after two years and the fourth chance after remaining at the top of the scale for one year. This fact is not disputed that in order to promote to the post of Addl. Director a candidate should possess 5 years qualifying service to the post of Joint Director. This fact is not disputed that in order to promote to the post of Addl. Director a candidate should possess 5 years qualifying service to the post of Joint Director. It is also not disputed that petitioner is serving on the post of Joint Director since November, 1991 hence he became eligible in the year 1996 after completing 5 years of service as Joint Director. There is no quarrel to the proposition that respondent No. 3 faced the assessment committee in the years 1995, 1996 and thirdly in 1997 and was not found fit and suitable for all the three times for promotion to the post of Additional Director. If the above-said rule is applied in its stricto sensue the candidature of respondent No. 3 for promotion to the post of Addl. Director could be considered only at the stage when he reaches at the stage of maximum of pay scale of the post of Joint Director and completes one year in that scale. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the record of the DPC and on going through it, it is gathered that by extending the benefit of Rule 52 disentitlement of respondent No. 3 was relaxed and by extending the benefit of Rule 52 he was promoted on the post of Addl. Director on 23-11-1998. It be seen that along with respondent No. 3 or Shri A. Bhaskaran was also promoted to the said post. 11. According to Rule 11(e) of the Rules of 1989 the Assessment Committee shall meet once in a year any time after April and consider the cases of eligible candidates who have completed the requisite qualifying service by 31st March of the year. There is a proviso to this rule according to which if promotion is to be made from the level of Joint Director to the level of Additional Director under the review/assessment, the scheme shall be limited to a maximum of 1/3 of the total number of candidates assessed in an year. For better understanding it would be appropriate to quote Rule 11(e) which reads thus:- 11.(e) Assessment Committee shall meet once in a year any time after April and consider the cases of eligible candidates who have completed the requisite qualifying service by 31st March of the year. For better understanding it would be appropriate to quote Rule 11(e) which reads thus:- 11.(e) Assessment Committee shall meet once in a year any time after April and consider the cases of eligible candidates who have completed the requisite qualifying service by 31st March of the year. PROVIDED that the promotion from the level of Joint Director to the level of Additional Director and from the level of Additional Director to the level of Director under the review/assessment scheme shall be limited to a maximum of 1/3 of the total number of candidates in an year. However, the following ratio shall be the guiding factor for determining the maximum number of promotions that may be granted having regard to the total number of candidates assessed in an year in each level:- No. of candidates assessed in an year Maximum No. of candidates who may be promoted 1-4 1 5-7 2 8-10 3 11-13 4 Since two posts were required to be filled from the post of joint Director to the post of Addl. Director, assessment of 5 to 7 persons were required to be made. On going through the record of the DPC it is gathered that petitioner was well in the zone of consideration and his name was at Serial No. 3 below Shri A. Bhaskaran. The meeting of review/assessment committee held on 30-7-1998 to review/assess Joint Directors for promotion to the post of Additional Director. This committee on the anvil of Rule 11 (e) of the Rules considered six Joint Directors and reviewed their assessment for promotion and on the basis of performance at the interview and the record of the performance in the Annual Confidential Report and Assessment Report, committee recommended 3 Joint Directors to be promoted to the post of Additional Director in the order of merit as indicated below :- i. Shri Ramesh Krishna Hegde (respondent No. 3) ii. Shri A. Bhaskaran. iii. Shri Pradeep Kumar Kognolkar (petitioner). Since only two candidates were required to be promoted, the first two candidates, namely, Ramesh Krishna Hegde (respondent No. 3) and A. Bhaskaran were recommended for their promotion and for other Joint Directors it was directed that their promotion may be re-assessed after 31-3-1999 as per rules. On going through the minutes of the review/assessment committee dated 30-7-1998 it is perceivable that following candidates were considered for promotion: i. Shri Ramesh Krishna Hegde-respondent No. 3. On going through the minutes of the review/assessment committee dated 30-7-1998 it is perceivable that following candidates were considered for promotion: i. Shri Ramesh Krishna Hegde-respondent No. 3. (IV attempt), ii. Shri Bhaskaran A (II attempt) iii. Shri Kognolkar P. K. (II attempt) iv. Dr. Sarkar B. N. (II attempt) v. Dr. Paul I.P.S. vi. Dr. Nandlal Nanvari The committee also noted that the IV chance has been afforded to Shri R. K. Hegde (respondent No. 3) for his assessment for promotion to the post of Additional Director in relaxation accorded by the Standing Committee at its 53rd meeting held on 10-3-1998. On going through the minutes of 53rd meeting held on 10, 3, 98 it is gathered that in terms of Rule 11(b) of the Rules of 1989 the committee approved the proposal to assess Shri R. K. Hegde, Joint Director (respondent No. 3) for promotion to the post of Additional Director also after 31 -3-1998 in relaxation of the rule under which he had to reach maximum of his pay scale. The Standing Committee felt that action should be taken to amend rule concerning the subject-matter. Thus, on the basis of the recommendations of the Standing Committee (agenda Item No. 53.3) the review/assessment committee considered the candidature of respondent No. 3 for the fourth chance. There was a proposal to relax Rule 11(b) of Rules of 1989 to assess the suitability for promotion to the post of Additional Director and according to the proposal it was proposed to relax the rule in regard to promote Shri R. K. Hegde, Joint Director (respondent No. 3) to the post of Additional Director and accordingly the Standing Committee relaxed the rule and recommended to promote respondent No. 3 and thereafter on 30-7-1998 the review/assessment committee further recommended the promotion of respondent No. 3 to the post of Additional Director. 12. In the aforesaid paragraph I have discussed in detail in regard to the recommendations made by the Standing Committee as well as review/assessment committee recommending to promote respondent No. 3 by relaxing Rule 11(b). 12. In the aforesaid paragraph I have discussed in detail in regard to the recommendations made by the Standing Committee as well as review/assessment committee recommending to promote respondent No. 3 by relaxing Rule 11(b). After examining the relevant record of DPC placed before me and also after going through the proposal in that regard it is found that a proposal was forwarded to promote respondent No. 3 simply on the ground that he availed three chances of assessment for promotion by the committees and he was not recommended for promotion by all the three committees during the preceding three years. In the proposal to promote him it has also been mentioned that in spite of his best efforts till 31-8-1997, he (respondent No. 3) could not satisfy the assessment committee about his suitability for promotion to the post of Additional Director. On going through the proposal it is further gathered that under the existing rule by its application to the revised scale of pay, Shri Hegde (respondent No. 3) would qualify for his last chance during the year 2004 after he reaches the maximum of the revised scale and remain there for a period of one year. According to the proposal, such a situation is considered to be certainly counter-productive and would have demoralizing effect not only on Shri Hegde but also on other officers. On the basis of this type of proposal the Standing Committee vide its meeting held on 10-3-1998 recommended for promotion to respondent No. 3 by making relaxation in the rule and thereafter the review/assessment committee on 30-7-1998 on the basis of the said recommendation of the Standing Committee recommended for promotion of respondent No. 3. 13. It be seen that if respondent No. 3 in all the three attempts could not qualify and satisfy the review/assessment committee for his promotion to the post of Additional Director, then merely he or other officers may not be demoralized could hardly be a cogent reason and ground to relax Rule 11(b) by exercising powers under Rule 52. To me hardship to an individual would not be a ground to give relaxation to rule in order to fit him in the slot of promotion. To me hardship to an individual would not be a ground to give relaxation to rule in order to fit him in the slot of promotion. What should be the norms in regard to relax a rule, the Supreme Court has taken note of it in three decisions; they are Suraj Prakash Gupta (supra), Ashok Kumar Uppal (supra) and J.C. Yadav (supra). The Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Prakash Gupta (supra) has held that relaxation of hardship to any particular case, the rule should not be relaxed, but the relaxation should be made in favour of a group. Since in the present case the Rule 11 is not relaxed for the benefit of a group of employees, but to an individual in order to benefit respondent No. 3, the view of this Court is that relaxation has been wrongly given. In the case of Ashok Kumar Vppal (supra) the Government relaxed the rule to obviate genuine hardship caused to a class of employees and the promotion rule was relaxed. The Apex Court held that Government had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously. In the present case the relaxation of Rule 11(b) is made applicable to respondent No. 3 only and, therefore, according to me, to give benefit to an individual in order to vanish and eradicate his so-called hardship or he may not be demoralised, the relaxation of the rule cannot be made. If in this manner the relaxation in the rule is made, then in every case where an employee is not found fit for promotion or that he may not be demoralised or he may not sustain so-called hardship, by relaxing the rule he would be promoted. That cannot be a fair scope of relaxation of the rule. 14. It be seen that under the administrative law power is vested in the competent authority to relax the rule if it is so provided under the statute but at the same time it should be observed that the said power should not be exercised in arbitrary or in capricious manner in order to benefit a particular person. 14. It be seen that under the administrative law power is vested in the competent authority to relax the rule if it is so provided under the statute but at the same time it should be observed that the said power should not be exercised in arbitrary or in capricious manner in order to benefit a particular person. Thus the promotion in order to give benefit to respondent No. 3 merely because he may not be demoralised as he was not found fit for promotion on earlier three occasions and he would become eligible for promotion only in the year 2004, could hardly be a ground to give promotion to him on such a prestigious and higher post, by the impugned order by relaxing the rule. In the case of J. C. Yadav (supra) the three-judge Bench of the Apex Court has taken the same view. 15. The case of Dr. K. Kalyana Raman (supra) and the case of B. S. Minhas (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for respondents are tangentially off the point and they are not applicable in the present factual scenario as they are distinguishable from the facts. Since the candidature of petitioner was considered by the review/assessment committee in its meeting held on 30-7-1998 and he was also found fit for promotion by the said review/Assessment Committee wherein three Joint Directors, namely, respondent No. 3, A. Bhaskaran and petitioner were found fit for promotion and since only two candidates were required to be promoted, the petitioner was not promoted though he was found fit for promotion. I have already held hereinabove in detail that respondent No. 3 was not fitting in the slot of promotion from any angle and in order to promote him the relaxation of the rule was made, which was not required to be made in the peculiar facts and circumstances. There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for respondents that since no mala fide has been pleaded and it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not promoted on account of any mala fide, therefore, he had no case to ask for promotion w.e.f. 23-11-1998 (the date when respondent No. 3 was promoted). The question of mala fide in the present case does not arise. The question of applicability of the relaxation of rule is there and whether rule has been rightly relaxed. The question of mala fide in the present case does not arise. The question of applicability of the relaxation of rule is there and whether rule has been rightly relaxed. I have already held hereinabove that rule has been improperly relaxed in favour of respondent No. 3- 16. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that since review/assessment committee already found the petitioner to be fit for promotion, his case for promotion from 23-11-1998 be considered by the respondents. During the pendency of this petition though the petitioner has already been promoted to the post of Additional Director w.e.f. 28-8-2001 vide order dated 24-9-2001, but the view of this Court is that he was required to be promoted w.e.f. 23rd November, 1998. The respondents are hereby directed to pass suitable order in that regard. 17. The petition is hereby allowed. No costs.