Judgment :- Ext. P2 is the feeder category rules published by the second respondent Co-operative Bank in terms of Rule 185(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Rules”. The post of Branch Manager is to be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in a prescribed ratio. Selection of candidates for promotion is to be on the basis of merit and ability, to be assessed through competitive examinations, as per Rule 185(1) of the Rules. Since holding of competitive examinations under that sub rule stood stayed by this Court, promotions to the post of Branch Manager were being made temporarily. 2. According to the petitioners, they are the senior most qualified senior accountants eligible for being considered for promotion as Branch Managers, however that, respondents 3 to 7 who do not possess the requisite qualification of graduation were allegedly extended blanket exemption form the requisite qualification. On such allegation, this writ petition was filed and an interlocutory order was issued on 17-6-2003 on I.A.No. 3909 of 2003 directing that any further promotion shall be only form qualified eligible hands or persons who have been cleared by the Board as well as by the departmental authorities under Rule 185(8) of the Rules. It was clarified that any promotion so made, would be subject to the final orders in the writ petition. 3. Thereafter, Ext.P7 was issued on 19-11-2003 whereby the first respondent Registrar has approved the relaxation of educational qualification of graduation granted by the Bank in favour of respondents 3 to 7. This is under challenge by the amendment of the writ petition. 4. Theparties have been heard on the basis of the amended writ petition and it is panted out by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 7 that almost all of them are retiring shortly. 5. From the impugned Ext.P7, it can be seen that as per resolution No.5 dated 19-4-2003, the Administrators of the Thiruvananthapuram district Co-operative Bank has requested to accord approval for the relaxation of educational qualification granted to the persons enumerated therein. That resolutions is Ext.P3 and by Ext.P4, temporary promotion orders were issued. 5. From the impugned Ext.P7, it can be seen that as per resolution No.5 dated 19-4-2003, the Administrators of the Thiruvananthapuram district Co-operative Bank has requested to accord approval for the relaxation of educational qualification granted to the persons enumerated therein. That resolutions is Ext.P3 and by Ext.P4, temporary promotion orders were issued. Rule 185(8) provides that it shall be competent for the committee of a society to relax the qualification, other than pass in the competitive examination, specified in sub-rule (5), of an employee, for the purpose of promotion, in deserving cases, with the prior approval of the registrar, and for reasons to be recorded. A rule authorizing relaxation has to be strictly construed to ensure that it does not result in conferring a blanket power to do so. (See State Orissa Vs. Sukanti Mohapatra [(1993) 2 SCC 486)]. The power to grant exemption in relation to service matters fell for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in T.C. Sreedharan Pillai Vs. state of Kerala (1973 KLT 151 FB). Though their Lordships were not considering a rule in pari material with that of Rule 185 (8) of the Rules, the wisdom in that judgment advises to remember that a rule providing for relaxation has to be applied by noticing the precise nature of the power conferred and such rule has to be construed as would eliminate arbitrariness and would also render its provisions consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the conferment of a power to exempt was to be applied without resulting in dissimilar treatment, in any manner. If the provision confers unbridled power on the authority conferred with such power, to decide at its sweet will and pleasure, either to apply or not to apply the power of exemption, that rule fails. 6. Rule 185 (8) of the Rules requires the society to record its reasons for relaxing the qualifications. (See Ramendran Vs. State, 1988 (1) KLT 576). While it may be open to the employer society to grant relaxation in deserving cases, thereby meaning that the question as to whether a person deserves or not has to be considered with reference to his credential, contribution and other attended matters, any rational, reasonable and fair employer has to strike a meaningful balance between all per sons, who compositely form a feeder category for promotion to a higher category. Viewing the concept of promotion in that angle, the power to grant relaxation is not to be applied as the rule, but always as an exemption and is not to be applied as if the rule is the employer society to push up all persons in the feeder category in the same priority to the higher category by granting relaxation without specific reference and individual reasons for each case, for relaxation of qualifications. It is insufficient that the employer society makes similarly worded, omnibus, though separate, statements regarding the conduct, status and contribution. The thrust must be on the demonstration by the contribution and conduct of an incumbent which would trigger any conscientious employer to decide to give such personal relaxation for the purpose of promotion and let him have a march over those qualified hands who are in the feeder category, but may be junior to the unqualified incumbent. 7. In the case in hand, it is beyond dispute that the promotions granted to respondents 3 to 7 were made before the proposal for relaxation was approved by the Registrar. Therefore, at the point of time when the impugned promotions were made, there was no decision as to relaxation, in the eye of law, in terms of Rule 185 (8) of the Rules. The impugned promotions are therefore bad. 8. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned resolution of the second respondent resolving to relax the qualifications of respondents 3 to 7 and Ext.P7 decision of the first respondent approving the same are contrary to law. 9. In the result, the impugned Exts. P4 and P7 are quashed, however directing that, if respondents 3 to 7 already retired from service, monetary benefits, if any, already enjoyed by them on the basis of the impugned orders, shall not be recalled. Writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.