Judgment S.N. Jha, C. J.-This special appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 012.2005 allowing the writ petition of Respondent No. 2, Hanuwant Singh Bhati, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) in the following terms:- "…………. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner also for out of turn promotion to Super Time Scale of RAS from the year 1995 after granting necessary relaxation as provided under Rule 41 of the Rules of 1954. Necessary consideration be made and decision be taken within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and consequential orders, if required, be passed within 30 days thereafter giving all financial benefits as well to the petitioner including arrears." .2. It may be mentioned here that the appellants were not party to the writ petition. They filed this appeal alongwith application seeking leave to appeal contending that out of turn promotion to Super Time Scale to the respondent from the year 1995 will affect their right and prospects but the directions had been issued behind their back without giving them opportunity of hearing. By order dated 04.01.2006 leave was granted and the appeal was admitted to hearing on 05.01.2006. In the facts and circumstances, till further orders and subject to objections by the respondent, operation of the order of the learned Single Judge was stayed. The stay, however, was vacated later by another Bench on 27.03.2006 in the following terms:- ."Considering these facts, in our view, it is a fit case for vacation of stay order. Let the Government consider the case of the petitioner on merit either by invoking the provisions of Rule 41 of Rajasthan Administrative Service, 1954 or by making suitable amendment in the relevant rules, as has been done in the case of police officials who have taken part in the concerned encounter." 3. The appellants filed application form review of the above order. On 11.05.2006 when the application came up for consideration, the Court observed that as the order (dated 27.03.2006) had been passed by a Co-ordinate Bench, it is not possible to make any modification, the proper course in the circumstances would be to finally hear the appeal itself . With the consent of Counsel for the parties the appeal was fixed for hearing as first item on 15.05.2006. With the consent of Counsel for the parties the appeal was fixed for hearing as first item on 15.05.2006. When the appeal was taken up on 17.05.2006, the Court was informed that in compliance of the order dated 27.03.2006, the State Government had issued an order promoting the respondent to Super Time Scale from the year 1995 under Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 (in short the RAS Rules) by relaxing Rule 41 of the RAS Rules on ad hoc basis subject to decision in the instant appeal. Expressing anguish over the manner in which the order had been issued by the Government even though the appeal was fixed for final hearing on 15.05.2006, and running on the board, the Court observed that it would be appropriate that the order is not given effect to and kept in abeyance by the Government. An order to that effect was passed keeping the order dated 16.05.2006 in abeyance till further orders. 4. The case of the appellants is that they respectively belong to 1977, 1975, 1979 and 1978 batches of the RAS as against the respondent who belongs to 1980 batch, and they were granted Super Time Scale in the years 1998-99, 1996-97, 2000-2001 and 1999-2000 respectively as against the respondent who was granted Super Time Scale in the year 2001-2002. The direction of the learned Single Judge to grant such promotion from the year 1995 wuold affect the rights and prospects for promotion of not only the appellants but many others who would stand superseded in case the direction is implemented and the respondent is granted promotion to Super Time Scale from 1995. Thus without impleading them and giving them opportunity of hearing, the direction could not have been issued. Further case of the appellants is that Rule 32(3) of the RAS Rules prescribes the period of eligibility for promotion to Super Time Scale. The respondent does not possess the eligibility and, therefore, he could not be granted promotion. The power of relaxation under Rule 41 of the RAS Rules can be exercised in the matter of relaxation of only age bar or experience at the time of initial recruitment to the service, and the direction of the learned Single Judge to consider the respondent for promotion from the year 1995 relaxing Rule 41 was illegal. The power of relaxation under Rule 41 of the RAS Rules can be exercised in the matter of relaxation of only age bar or experience at the time of initial recruitment to the service, and the direction of the learned Single Judge to consider the respondent for promotion from the year 1995 relaxing Rule 41 was illegal. Thus neither the rule as to the eligibility for promotion to the Super Time Scale could be relaxed nor the respondent could be given retrospective promotion out of turn. .5. The respondent does not deny that he belongs to 1980 batch of RAS and he was promoted to the Super Time Scale later than the appellants in 2001-2002. He, however, contends that he was promoted to the Selection Grade earlier than the appellants, except appellant No. 2 N.K. Jain, in 1991-92. As regards Appellant No. 2, it is said that though he was granted .promotion to Selection Grade earlier, he has since been absorbed in the Board of Revenue and ceased to be a member of the RAS. The respondent thus has not only claimed seniority over the appellants (except Appellant No. 2), he has also questioned their locus standi to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge or the consequential order of out of turn promotion to him. We shall deal with the question of locus standi later at the appropriate place in this Judgment . 6. The area of dispute having been broadly indicated, we may now state the case of the respondent as set out in the writ petition. After paying himself compliments for his professed ability, extra-ordinary performance and outstanding record, and complaining of the arbitrary behaviour of the Chief Secretary and his vindictive, mala fide and biased attitude, the respondent stated that in the year 1995 when he was serving as Additional District Magistrate (City) (Incharge of Law & Order), Jaipur, an encounter took place between the police and members of the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF) in the night of 25th/26th February, 1995 at Model Town, Jagatpura, Jaipur in which one Navneet Singh Kandia was killed while other terrorists escaped. The respondent one coming to know about the incident rushed to the spot. On search he found some clues on the basis of which he could trace out the headquarter of terrorists and their secret hideouts in Jaipur and recover sophisticated arms and ammunitions and explosives. The respondent one coming to know about the incident rushed to the spot. On search he found some clues on the basis of which he could trace out the headquarter of terrorists and their secret hideouts in Jaipur and recover sophisticated arms and ammunitions and explosives. The recovery was first of its kind in the history of Rajasthan. The Collector, Jaipur vide letter dated 04.03.1995 appreciated his work and recommended out of turn promotion, state award and suitable cash reward to him. The Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur also vide his D.O. dated 07.03.1995 recommended out of turn promotion. The Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan by letter dated 08.04.1996 conveyed Governments appreciation for the outstanding work done by him showing initiative, resourcefulness and dedication towards duty in discovering a terrorist hideout. The respondent made representation on 01.07.1996 with request to grant him "one scale promotion" taking into consideration recommendation of the controlling authority which according to him had not been taken into consideration earlier. On 010.1996 the State Government granted three advance annual grade increments in recognition of the gallant service/work performed by him. Later, on coming to know that one Govind Detha, a police official posted as SHO at the relevant time had been awarded with out of turn promotion in recognition of his work in an encounter, on 012.1998 the respondent made representation to award him similar out of turn promotion. Therein he contended that If an officer can be allowed out of turn promotion for doing something which is part of his duty, he should be given similar out of turn promotion for doing something which was not part of his duty. On 25.09.2002 he filed another representation. On 20.07.2004 he filed yet another representation. On 211.2004 the Director General of Police, Rajasthan addressed a D.O. to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur requesting him to review his case for out of turn promotion. On 25.09.2002 he filed another representation. On 20.07.2004 he filed yet another representation. On 211.2004 the Director General of Police, Rajasthan addressed a D.O. to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur requesting him to review his case for out of turn promotion. Complaining of inaction on the part of the State Government in giving him out of turn promotion despite recommendations to that effect and alleging that it was on account of bias on the part of the (then) Chief Secretary who was annoyed with him because his brother had filed a contempt petition against the Chief Secretary, the respondent filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the State Government to treat this case as an extra-ordinary exceptional case of gallantry in the history of Rajasthan and by treating the same in the manner, the petitioner may kindly be awarded out of turn promotion. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or a mandamus in the nature thereof directing the State Govt. to award out of turn promotion or benefit of one time scale from the date the incident occurred i.e., 26.02.1995 to the petitioner for his extra-ordinary gallantry work. (iii) Issuean appropriate writ, order or direction or a mandamus in the nature thereof directing the State Government to place on record original award file of the Police Department in which whole case of petitioner has been examined. .(iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing the State Government to relax the provisions of Rule 14(i) by exercising relaxation power of the Government under Rule 41 of the Rules of 1954 in giving out of turn promotion to the petitioner. .(v) Issuean appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing the State Govt. to give equal treatment to the petitioner alike other participants in this terrorist episode and similar treatment like out of turn promotion, cash reward of Rs. 1.00 lac and gallantry medal as were granted to other police officials may be given to the petitioner. .(vi) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing the State Govt. to give equal treatment to the petitioner alike other participants in this terrorist episode and similar treatment like out of turn promotion, cash reward of Rs. 1.00 lac and gallantry medal as were granted to other police officials may be given to the petitioner. .(vi) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing the State Govt. to give benefit of seniority to the petitioner in terms of his out of turn promotion while preparing the seniority list of RAS officer and further promotions in the cadre or alternatively the State Government may be directed to finalise the seniority list giving seniority to the petitioner." 7. In its reply to the writ petition, the State Government took the plea that there was no provision in the RAS Rules to give out of turn promotion to a member of the RAS. In appreciation of his services and gallant work, the respondent had already been granted three advance grade increments on 010.1996. Though the case of the respondent had been recommended for out of turn promotion, but in absence of any such provision in the RAS Rules such benefit could not be accorded to him. Grant of three advance grade increments was in a sense an accelerated advancement. The Government also stated that the case of the respondent was similar to that of Rohit Mahajan, Additional S.P. (Traffic) who had not been granted out of turn promotion. The case of Govind Detha was distinguished and it was stated that he was instrumental in encounter with terrorists and freeing of Shri Rajendra Mirdha in which neither the respondent nor Rohit Mahajan was involved. .8. The learned Single Judge referred to letters of the Collector and Divisional Commissioner dated 04.03.1995 and 07.03.1995 respectively and observed that while the police official involved in the "same" incident had already been granted suitable awards and even out of turn promotion by making necessary amendment in the relevant rules, in the case of respondent the authorities washed their hands by just granting him three advance grade increments which was nothing but "tossing a coin in the bowl of a beggar". The observations of the learned Single Judge may be quoted as under:- ."Without processing and pursuing the matter any further, the most unfortunate part is that the authorities washed their hands just by awarding three advance grade increments to the petitioner, the monetary benefit of which comes to only Rs. 375/-in the salary per month. This is nothing but tossing a coin in the bowl of a beggar. The humiliation of the officer in such circumstances can be well imagined. Such pathetic sadistic approach of some of the higher authorities is highly deplorable. Instead of generating confidence among the officers such authorities only lose respect for themselves." 9. The learned Single Judge then referred to the notings of the Secretary, Department of Personnel dated 08.02.2005 wherein it had been observed that if out of turn promotion to the respondent with retrospective effect is to be made treating his case similar to that of Govind Detha, it would require amendment in the RAS Rules. The learned Single Judge took the view that there was no necessity to make amendments in the Rules as Rule 41 confers power to relax the rules. The appellant has been granted selection grade as per his turn in the year 1991-92, but in view of his exceptional service, "he ought to have been granted Super Time Scale of RAS by relaxing the rules as provided in Rule 41 of the RAS Rules from the year 1995 itself ". The learned Single Judge also observed that though there was no necessity to make amendments in the rules in view of Rule 41, "still, if the situation requires and as has been done in other service rules, necessary amendments can also be made for future in regard to giving out of turn promotion to the employees to encourage and appreciate their services". Having made these observations, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with directions which have been noticed above at the outset of this Judgment . .10. Before referring to the provisions of the RAS Rules, a few things may be stated to clarify the factual position. The discovery of the terrorist hide-out, accredited to the respondent, in the night of 25th/26th February, 1995 was the sequel to the kidnapping and subsequent recovery of one Rajendra Mirdha. .10. Before referring to the provisions of the RAS Rules, a few things may be stated to clarify the factual position. The discovery of the terrorist hide-out, accredited to the respondent, in the night of 25th/26th February, 1995 was the sequel to the kidnapping and subsequent recovery of one Rajendra Mirdha. While the operation was going on to search the escaped terrorists, the respondent who was incharge of law & order of Jaipur City and was on the round, came across a wireless message in his vehicle and taking note of the same, immediately rushed to the spot and after apprising himself of the happenings, left in search of the escaped terrorists alongwith Rohit Mahajan, Additional S.P. (Traffic) who had also reached there. Both the officers spotted a maroon coloured briefcase about two furlongs away from the place of encounter and found keys inside. one of the keys was of a new Maruti Car with the name tag of one Ravindra Choudhary. The respondent advised Rohit Mahajan to further undertake detailed inquiry with a view to reaching the escaped terrorists. In the words of the Collector, "What happened thereafter during the enquiry is contained in the inquiry report submitted by Shri Bhati" i.e., the respondent himself . The Collector then stated facts from the said enquiry report enclosing its copy with his letter dated 04.03.1995. In the light of the facts stated in the report (of the respondent himself), the Collector recommended the case of the respondent for out of turn promotion, state award and suitable cash reward. The Collector further recommended that Rohit Mahajan, Additional S.P. (Traffic), who had worked in "close co-ordination" with the respondent in conducting the search, also deserved recognition of the State government as per its declared policy. He observed .that the operation could be possible because of "perfect co-ordination amongst all those involved in the operation". It is relevant to mention that Rohit Mahajan was allowed three advance grade increments, which was allowed to the respondent too. 11. Another fact which may be clarified is that out of turn promotion to Govind Detha was for the incident relating to encounter with terrorists and rescue of Rajendra Mirdha in which the respondent was not involved. As mentioned above, he alongwith Rohit Mahajan had been instrumental in finding out a terrorist hide-out and recovery of arms and explosives. 11. Another fact which may be clarified is that out of turn promotion to Govind Detha was for the incident relating to encounter with terrorists and rescue of Rajendra Mirdha in which the respondent was not involved. As mentioned above, he alongwith Rohit Mahajan had been instrumental in finding out a terrorist hide-out and recovery of arms and explosives. Thus, comparison of the case of respondent with that of Govind Detha as if both of them were involved in the same incident was not correct. The observation of the learned Single Judge to the contrary-referred to above - was clearly the result of misrepresentation of facts. If there was any similarity, it was with the case of Rohit Mahajan who was granted three advance grade increments like the respondent. 12. Yet another fact which may be kept in mind is that the basis of the recommendation of the Collector or the Divisional Commissioner were the facts stated in the report of the respondent himself-which becomes evident from a reading of the letters. We do not wish to belittle the work done by the respondent, we only want to clarify that the impression formed by the Collector/Commissioner was on the basis of facts as stated by the respondent himself . 13. At this stage, reference may be made to the relevant rules of the RAS framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 7 which provides for source of recruitment lays down that the recruitment to the service i.e., the Rajasthan Administrative Servcie shall be made -(a) by direct recruitment and; (b) by promotin of Tehsildars. Part IV contains provisions regarding direct recruitment while Part V contains provisions for recruitment by promotion. Section 32 deals with appointment to senior post. Sub-rule (1) thereof provides that in accordance with vacancies determined according to the provisions laid down in Rule 9, appointment to Senior Scale, selection Scale and Super Time Scale shall be made by the Government from amongst members of the service in accordance with the selection made on the basis of merit and seniority-cum-merit on the recommendation of a committee headed by the Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission and consisting of three members as mentioned therein. Sub-rule (2) lays down the procedure and principles to be followed for granting higher scales. Sub-rule (2) lays down the procedure and principles to be followed for granting higher scales. Sub-rule (3) lays down the eligibility for grant of and appointment to the Super Time Scale post. Having regard to the significance of the provision, Sub-rule (3) may be quoted as under:-"(3) No member of the service who has not completed 3 years service on the Selection Scale posts and 20 years service in all on the posts included in the service shall be eligible for appointment on the Super Time Scale Posts." 14. Case of the appellants is that in terms of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 32, it is mandatory that the member of the service should have put in three years Service on Selection Scale post and also twenty years service in all, and that is how the appellants and the respondent were promoted to Super Time Scale on completion of twenty years of service. The respondent who belongs to 1980 batch of direct recruitment and completed twenty years of service in the year 2000, was thus promoted to the Super Time Scale with effect from 2001-02. He was not entitled for promotion to Super Time Scale prior to 2001. 15. The respondent does not contend to the contrary so far as interpretation of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 32 is concerned. According to him, however the Government has power to relax the rule or, alternatively, the Government may amend the rule. And in the facts and circumstances, having regard to the extra-ordinary service rendered by him, he was entitled to out of turn promotion -if not by relaxing Rule 32(3) exercising the power of relaxation under Rule 41, by suitably amending the RAS Rules to provide for out of turn promotion. 16. It is not in dispute that under the RAS Rules there is no provision for out of turn promotion and therefore, in the ordinary course such promotion cannot be given to a member of the RAS without amending the rules. But instead of amending the rules, out of turn promotion has been given in this case by relaxing the rules in exercise of power under Rule 41. The rule or rules so relaxed have not been specified in the order dated 16.05.2006. There is omnibus reference to "rules". Apparently, the rule under reference is Sub-rule (3) of Rule 32. But instead of amending the rules, out of turn promotion has been given in this case by relaxing the rules in exercise of power under Rule 41. The rule or rules so relaxed have not been specified in the order dated 16.05.2006. There is omnibus reference to "rules". Apparently, the rule under reference is Sub-rule (3) of Rule 32. The question for consideration is whether the condition of eligibility prescribed under Rule 32(3) can be relaxed in exercise of power under Rule 41. 17. At this stage, Rule 41 may be quoted as under:-"41. Power to relax rules.-In exceptional cases where the Administrative Department of the Government is satisfied that operation of the rules relating to age or regarding requirement of experience for recruitment causes undue hardship in any particular case or where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to age or experience of any persons, it may with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and in consultation with the Commission by orders dispense with or relax the relevant provisions of these rules to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner, provided that such relaxation shall not be less favorable than the provisions already contained in these rules, such case of relaxation shall be referred to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission by the "Administrative Department concerned." 18. On a plain reading, it would appear that in an exceptional case where the Government is satisfied that operation of the rules would cause undue hardship in a particular case, it may dispense with or relax the rule with respect to age or experience of any person (s). Dissecting the rule further, in (a) exceptional cases; (b) to mitigate undue hardship; (c) to the extent as may be necessary to deal with the case in a just and equitable manner and; (d) the rule with respect to age or experience (of a person) can be relaxed. 19. We do not wish to go into the question as to whether the events which took place in the night of 25/26.02.1995 made out an exceptional case". The learned Single Judge not only made favourable observations but virtually recorded a finding to that effect. 19. We do not wish to go into the question as to whether the events which took place in the night of 25/26.02.1995 made out an exceptional case". The learned Single Judge not only made favourable observations but virtually recorded a finding to that effect. We are of the view that it is for the State Government to form an independent opinion on the point. While exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the constitution, the High Court cannot record any such finding nor issue any direction to either relax the rule or amend the rules. These are executive or legislative functions which the High Court can not indirectly perform under Article 226 of the Constitution. 20. Besides, it is well known that an employee cannot claim any right of promotion. Way back in State of Mysore vs. G.B. Purohit, 1967 SLR 753 SC, it was held that a right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service but mere chances of promotion are not. This was approved by the Constitution Bench in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar vs. State of Maharashtra, 1974 (1) SCC 317 . This principle has been reiterated times without number. In Mohd. Shujat Ali vs. Union of India, 1975 (3) SCC 76, it was observed-"But when we speak of a right to be considered for promotion, we must not confuse it with mere chance of promotion -the latter would certainly not be a condition of service …… that though a right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service, mere chances of promotion are not." Reference may also be made to Reserve Bank of India vs. C.T. Dighe, 1981 (3) SCC 545 , State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, 1981 (4) SCC 130 , Reserve Bank of India vs. C.N. Sahasranaman, 1986 Supp. SCC 143, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah vs. Union of India, 1989 (2) SCC 541 and K. Jagadeesan vs. Union of India, 1990 (2) SCC 228 . 21. If chance of promotion is not a condition of service and cannot be enforced by a writ of mandamus it is difficult to appreciate as to how claim for out of turn promotion can be enforced by a similar writ. 21. If chance of promotion is not a condition of service and cannot be enforced by a writ of mandamus it is difficult to appreciate as to how claim for out of turn promotion can be enforced by a similar writ. The claim for out of turn promotion on the basis of ones own perception of his work or even otherwise cannot even be called chance of promotion in the legal sense muchless a condition of service. Claim for out of turn promotion, in our opinion, would stand on lesser footing than regular promotion, and if chance of regular promotion cannot be enforced, no writ can be issued for enforcement of a claim for out of turn promotion. The direction of the learned Single Judge is fit to be set aside on these grounds alone. 22. In the instant case, the State Government has already issued an order in favour of the respondent in purported compliance of the impugned directions of the learned Single Judge and interim order of the Division Bench dated 27.03.2006. We have nevertheless made the observation to clarify the legal position so that in case the State Government were to reconsider the matter, the observations/findings of the learned Single Judge would not stand in the way in taking an independent decision. 23. Assuming that it was an "exceptional" case, two questions would arise for consideration - (i) Whether it was a case of "undue hardship"? and (ii) Whether the power of relaxation being limited to the rules relating to age or experience, Sub-rule (3) of Rule 32 could be relaxed? In other words, whether eligibility condition under Rule 32(3) could be relaxed? 4.24. In Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors., 2000 (7) SCC 561 , the Supreme Court made distinction between relaxation of conditions of service and relaxation of recruitment rules and held that while the rules relating to conditions of service may be relaxed, the recruitment rules cannot be relaxed. It would be useful to quote the relevant observations in Paragraphs 26 and 32 as under:- "Some relaxation rules permit relaxation of conditions of service and some permit rela