M. M. Kumar;CJ.:-- The instant appeal preferred by the State of Jammu and Kashmir is di­rected against judgment and order dated 08.10.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. While allowing SWP No. 02/2006 (Rajen Warikoo and ors. v. State of J&K), the learned Single Judge has issued direc­tions to the appellant to regularise the services of the writ petitioner-respon­dents against the post of Subject Mat­ter Specialists with effect from 1988 in relaxation of Recruitment Rules known as the Jammu and Kashmir Agricul­ture (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988 (SRO 179 of 1988) (for brev­ity the Recruitment Rules, 1988). BACKDROP: 2. Brief facts would be necessary to put the controversy in its proper per­spective and to appreciate the legal is­sue raised. In fact, it is the second round of litigation. The writ petitioner respondents were working as Village Extension Workers in the Agriculture Production Department. They were given posting for a period of six months against the post of Subject Matter Spe­cialists in the National Agriculture Ex­tension Programme (T&V Programme) vide Government order No. 410-Agri of 1985 dated 26.07.1985. Under Article 87-B of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Rules charge allowance for working on a higher post was also sanc­tioned in their favour or till the posts are filled up on regular basis whichever is earlier. The order made it absolutely clear that the posting was not to con­fer any right on the incumbent with re­gard to seniority or appointment on regular basis. A copy of the same has been placed on the writ record (R-2). The aforesaid arrangement continued till 1988. The Government framed statutory rules by including the post of Subject Matter Specialists in the Re­cruitment Rules of 1988. 3. Before embarking upon the dis­cussion based on the Recruitment Rules, 1988, it is necessary to point out that the post of Subject Matter Special­ists on which the writ petitioner-re­spondents were given charge were not covered by the Rules. These posts had come with the scheme of National Ag­riculture Extension Production (T&V) Programme financed by the World Bank which was implemented at the National level. The Jammu and Kashmir Gov­ernment vide order No. 607-Agri of 1984 dated 18.10.1984 accorded sanc­tion to the implementation of the scheme in the State. Under the scheme various posts were created which included the post of Subject Mat­ter Specialists (Sub Divisional Level). The Jammu and Kashmir Gov­ernment vide order No. 607-Agri of 1984 dated 18.10.1984 accorded sanc­tion to the implementation of the scheme in the State. Under the scheme various posts were created which included the post of Subject Mat­ter Specialists (Sub Divisional Level). For appointment to the aforesaid post, a person was required to be postgradu­ate in the subject concerned. Conse­quently sanction was accorded vide or­der No. 410-Agri of 1985 dated 26.07.1985 for transfer and posting of 23 Agriculture Assistants, Agriculture Extension Officers and Village Exten­sion Workers as Subject Matter Spe­cialists against the posts so created. All of them possessed M. Sc qualification and the writ petitioner-respondents were some of those persons. In other words, the parent cadre of the writ pe­titioner-respondents was Village Exten­sion Workers within the meaning of the Recruitment Rules, 1988. First Round of Litigation and Government dated 14.05.2002 4. The first round of litigation com­menced when they filed SWP No. 1116 of 1998 titled Nana ji Rayu & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 21.08.1998 which led to the filing of Letters Patent Appeal by the writ petitioner respon­dents. The Letters Patent Bench vide order dated 06.10.2001 allowed the ap­peal and set aside the view taken by the learned Single Judge in order dated 21.08.1998. The Division Bench issued following four directions :- "(a) The appropriate Government shall consider the relaxation of Rules of 1988, in terms of Rule 9, in the light of the opinion given by the learned Advocate General and the observa­tions made by us, in favour of the appellants-writ petitioners. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. (b) In the event, relaxation of rules is not possible in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, the appellants may be sent back to the Agriculture Department, on a promotion post, which by now have been acquired by their batch-mates who were working as Village Extension Workers in 1985. (c) In the event the appropriate author­ity resorts to direction (b) above, the appellants-writ petitioners shall not be sent back to the Agriculture De­partment unless equivalent promo­tional posts, which have now been acquired by their batch-mates are clearly indicated. (c) In the event the appropriate author­ity resorts to direction (b) above, the appellants-writ petitioners shall not be sent back to the Agriculture De­partment unless equivalent promo­tional posts, which have now been acquired by their batch-mates are clearly indicated. (d) Relaxation of Rules in terms of Rule 9, shall be strictly applicable only to the appellants in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances as directed above and under no circumstances such relaxation would be applicable to others who are not covered with the facts of the present case. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of. The case of the writ petitioner-re­spondents was considered and it was found extremely difficult to grant relax­ation of the Recruitment Rules, 1988. As a consequence, they were sent back to their parent department. It would be profitable to extract Govern­ment order No. 175-Agri of 2002 dated 14.05.2002, which considered their cases in pursuance to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 06.10.2001. The extract of or­der dated 14.05.2002 is set out below:- "Whereas under National Agricultural Extension Project (T&V Programme), forty posts of subject matter special­ists (SMS) were created vide Govern­ment Order No. 607-Agri of 1984 dated 18.10.1984 as under:- 1. Agronomy =15 2. Plant Protection =15 3. Horticulture =15 Whereas in the J&K Agriculture Gazetted Recruitment Rules, 1978 the posts of SMS in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1000-1560 did not figure. Whereas the Agriculture Department decided to fill up the posts on stop­gap basis from amongst the employ­ees already working in the depart­ment holding Masters Degree in the relevant discipline, pending revision of the Recruitment Rules and the pro­motions being made in accordance with the rules. Whereas the officials available with M. Sc. in the department at that time comprised Agriculture Assistants (Gazetted) and village Extension Workers (Non-Gazetted). Whereas it was understood that the officials of these two categories have a fair chance of their getting selected in the event of posts being filed by the PSC and accordingly they were placed as Subject Matter Specialists in NAEP scheme and Charge Allowance under Article 87(b) was also sanctioned in their favour. Whereas it was understood that the officials of these two categories have a fair chance of their getting selected in the event of posts being filed by the PSC and accordingly they were placed as Subject Matter Specialists in NAEP scheme and Charge Allowance under Article 87(b) was also sanctioned in their favour. Whereas the J&K Agriculture Gazet­ted Recruitment Rules, 1988 came into force on 02.06.1988 which pro­vided filling up of the aforesaid posts of SMS by promotion from amongst Agriculture Assistant (Gazetted) re-designated as Agriculture Extension Officer and no provision was made for promotion of VEW (Non-Gazetted) against these posts as indicated below:- By selection from Agriculture Exten­sion Officers/equivalent possessing B. Sc Agriculture degree having mini­mum 5 years degree in that doss. Pref­erence be given to those who possess M. Sc Agriculture in relevant subject. Whereas relevant pay scales of SMS were released in favour of the offic­ers of the level of Agriculture Assis­tants being covered under rules. Whereas aggrieved with the non re­lease of the grade, the VEWs went to the Court". 5. The order further specifies the dismissal of SWP No. 1116 of 1998 and then proceeds to reproduce the sole di­rection issued by the Letters Patent Bench on 06.10.2001. The consider­ation is reflected in the concluding para which reads as under:- "Whereas the issue has accordingly been examined in view of the direc­tions of the Hon'ble Court and it is considered appropriate to take re­course to the option (b) prescribed by the Hon'ble Court which reads as under:- In the event, relaxation of rules is not possible in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, the appellants may be sent back to the Agriculture De­partment, on a promotion post, which by now have been acquired by their batch-mates who were working as Village Extension Workers in 1985. Now, therefore, in compliance with the Court or­ders the officials shown in Annexure to this order are placed/pro­moted nationally as AEO and SMS from the dates indicated against each. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir". The Second Round of Litigation: 6. In the second round of litigation, the writ petitioner-respondents have again challenged the aforesaid order. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition challenging the im­pugned order. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir". The Second Round of Litigation: 6. In the second round of litigation, the writ petitioner-respondents have again challenged the aforesaid order. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition challenging the im­pugned order. The learned Single Judge has virtually ordered regularization of the writ petitioner-respondents on the posts of Subject Matter Special­ist by relaxing the Recruitment Rules, 1988 by virtue of the powers vested in the Competent Authority under Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules with effect from 20.04.1988. Arguments in support of the Appeal & Contra. 7. Mrs. S. Hakim, learned Deputy Advocate General, has vehemently ar­gued that for the post of Subject Matter Specialist-III, the feeder cadre is Agri­culture Extension Officer. Accordingly, appointment to the post of Subject Mat­ter Specialist-III is to be made by se­lection from Agriculture Extension Of­ficers possessing B. Sc Degree with minimum 5 years experience as Agri­culture Extension Officer and prefer­ence was to be given to those who pos­sessed the degree of M. Sc Agriculture in the relevant subject. Accordingly, only 17 officers working as Agriculture Extension Officer were promoted to the post of Subject Matter Specialist-III and the grade of the post was also re­leased in their favour vide Government order dated 07.06.1988 (R-6). She has further submitted that all those offic­ers were already working as Class VII officers (Gazetted) namely, Agriculture Extension Officers whereas the writ pe­titioner-respondents were working on non-gazetted post of Village Extension Workers. However, because of the pend­ing litigation they continued working and their temporary status was not ever disturbed. The charge allowance in ad­dition to their own pay and grade has already been paid to them as per the provisions of Section 87-B of the Civil Service Rules. She has further argued that the record would reflect close ap­plication of mind with regard to possi­bility of relaxing the requirement of the Rule, namely, giving promotion to Vil­lage Extension Workers direct to the post of Subject Matter Specialist, jump­ing the feeder cadre of Agriculture Ex­tension Officers. 8. Mr. Pant, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondents has on the contrary argued that the writ peti­tioner-respondents are litigating in Courts for the last more than two de­cades and they have been subjected to harsh treatment. 8. Mr. Pant, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondents has on the contrary argued that the writ peti­tioner-respondents are litigating in Courts for the last more than two de­cades and they have been subjected to harsh treatment. According to the learned counsel once the writ peti­tioner-respondents fulfilled the M.Sc qualification then there was no impedi­ment for giving them promotion to the post of Subject Matter Specialist-III by relaxing the Rules in pursuance of power vested under Rule 8. It has also been submitted that at the time of making the charge arrangement by passing orders dated 26.07.1985 & 10.10.1985, the only thing which was kept in view was that the person should be M.Sc in the subject con­cerned and on that basis the charge arrangement was made. 9. Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length, we feel that it would first be necessary to examine the provisions of Rule 9 of the Recruit­ment Rule, 1988 which deals with the power of the State Government to re­lax any of the provisions of those Rules. Rule 9 is extracted below in extenso:- "(9) Power to relax: -- Where the gov­ernment is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedite so to do, it may by order for reasons to be recorded in writing and consultation which Pub­lic Service Commission relax any of the provisions of these rules with re­spect of any class, category of per­son or post. Provided that while exercising the dis­cretion the Government would keep the following principles in view: (a that the discretion is exercised bonafide: (b) that such an exercise specifies objective test: (c) that it would satisfy responsible man in place of the authority compe­tent to relax; and (d) that the power should be vested with the Chief Minister only. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule would show that where the Government is of the view that in the facts and cir­cumstances of the case it is necessary or expedite, it may relax the provi­sions of any rule for reasons to be recorded in writing with respect to any class, category of persons or posts. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule would show that where the Government is of the view that in the facts and cir­cumstances of the case it is necessary or expedite, it may relax the provi­sions of any rule for reasons to be recorded in writing with respect to any class, category of persons or posts. However, the exercise of power of re­laxation is subject to four principles, namely, (i) That the discretion to re­lax the Rule is exercised bonafide; (ii) That such an exercise must be based on some objective test; (iii) That the relaxation would satisfy a respon­sible man standing in the shoes of competent authority, in other words, it should be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case to re­lax; and (iv) That the power to relax has been vested with the highest Ex­ecutive Authority of the State, namely, the Chief Minister". 10. It is well settled that no one can claim as a matter of right that power of relaxation should be exercised in his favour merely because in one case the authorities have preferred to do so. If there is no right to seek relaxation of the Rules then no mandamus could be issued to the authorities. It appears to us that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in law by issuing direction to the appellant in the penultimate paras. According to the direction, the appellants are required to consider the case of the writ peti­tioner-respondents for regularization against the post of Subject Matter Spe­cialists in relaxation of Recruitment Rules issued vide SRO 179 of 1988 dated 02.06.1988 i.e. Jammu and Kashmir Agriculture (Gazetted) Ser­vice Recruitment Rules, 1988 by exer­cising power under Rule 9 of the said Rules, within two months from the date copy of the order was served upon them. The appellant has been further directed to regularize the services of the writ petitioner-respondents as Subject Mat­ter Specialists retrospectively, i.e w.e.f. 20th April, 1988. The aforesaid direc­tions have been issued despite the fact that the learned Single Judge is con­scious that no relaxation can be or­dered which can go to the root of the appointment which is not the case herein. The aforesaid direc­tions have been issued despite the fact that the learned Single Judge is con­scious that no relaxation can be or­dered which can go to the root of the appointment which is not the case herein. Rules debarred the writ peti­tioner-respondents for holding the post of Subject Matter Specialists because appointment to the post of Subject Mat­ter Specialists can only be made from Agriculture Extension Officer and not from Village Extension Officer which is a lower category in the hierarchy. State has the power to relax the rules, more particularly when the writ petitioners respondents came to be appointed prior to coming into force the Rules of 1988. Despite the aforesaid position in law noted by the Writ Court, it still pro­ceeded to issue the direction in the penultimate para. We reiterate the principle that relaxation cannot be claimed as matter of right. The exer­cise of power must be based on an ob­jective criteria. For the aforesaid propo­sition, reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hontile Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnatka v. R. Vivekananda Swamy 2008 (5) SCC 328 . It is equally well settled that Rule pro­viding for relaxation cannot be con­strued to mean that the fundamental structure of the service is to be affected adversely. Such a Rule would not permit and arm the State Government to regularize illegal recruitment as has been stated by the HonTale Supreme Court in the cases of State of Orissa & ors. v. Sukanti Mohapatra and ors. ( (1993) 2 SCC 486 and Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan (1997) (6) SCC 614. According to the observations made there cannot be any wholesale relax­ation of candidates by relaxing maxi­mum age limit. The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is discernible from the following para of the judgment:- "In our view this kind of an interpre­tation cannot be given to a rule for relaxation of age. The power of relax­ation is required to be exercised in public interest in a given case; as for example, if other suitable candidates are not available for the post, and the only candidate who is suitable has crossed the maximum age limit; or to mitigate hardship in a given case. Such a relaxation in special circum­stances of a given case is to be exer­cised by the administration after re­ferring that case to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Such a relaxation in special circum­stances of a given case is to be exer­cised by the administration after re­ferring that case to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. There can­not be any wholesale relaxation be­cause the advertisement is delayed or because the vacancy occurred earlier especially when there is no allegation of any mala fides in connection with any delay in issuing an advertise­ment. This kind of power of whole­sale relaxation would make for total uncertainty in determining the maxi­mum age of a candidate. It might be unfair to a large number of candi­dates who might be similarly situated, but who may not apply, thinking that they are age barred. We fail to see how the power of relaxation can be exercised in the manner contended". 11. The question then is whether the directions issued by the Letters Patent Bench on 06.10.2001 in the first round of litigation have been complied with or not. In that regard, we have examined the original record. A perusal of the record would show that all the four directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court were closely exam­ined and on account of the fact that there was difficulty in relaxing the Rule and the power to relax the Rule was vested with the Chief Minister only, therefore, it was considered preferable to comply with the direction (b). The record further shows that the exercise of discretion was required to be bonafide and it must be based on some objective test as per the requirement of Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, 1988. The difficulty which appears to have confronted the appellant is that the writ petitioner-respondents were working on the post of Village Exten­sion Workers which is a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Agriculture Extension Officers. An Agriculture Ex­tension Officer possessing B. Sc degree with minimum 5 years experience as Agriculture Extension Officer has been made eligible to be considered for ap­pointment to the post of Subject Mat­ter Specialists. The jumping of one pro­motional ladder was found difficult to permit. Therefore, direction (b) was taken up for compliance. An Agriculture Ex­tension Officer possessing B. Sc degree with minimum 5 years experience as Agriculture Extension Officer has been made eligible to be considered for ap­pointment to the post of Subject Mat­ter Specialists. The jumping of one pro­motional ladder was found difficult to permit. Therefore, direction (b) was taken up for compliance. Once they go back to their parent department in ac­cordance with the direction (b) then their cases were to be examined vis-a­vis their juniors are to be considered for promotion as Agriculture Extension Officers with effect from the date their juniors were promoted to the post of Agriculture Extension Officers and likewise further promotion to the post of Subject Matter Specialists was to fol­low. We are of the firm opinion that the order passed by the appellant on 14.05.2002 (R-7) would not suffer from any illegality. 12. Even otherwise, relaxation of Rule by jumping of feeder cadre for promo­tion to the post of Subject Matter Spe­cialists would result in extreme diffi­culty besides setting up a bad prece­dent. The directions issued by the Di­vision Bench have been implemented. Any direction of mandatory character in contravention of the Rules would not be warranted and the appellant cannot be compelled to violate the Rules. We see no injustice be caused to the writ petitioner-respondents because they, according to direction (b), were to get all those benefits which they were en­titled to had they continued working in their parent department. 13. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal is allowed and the im­pugned judgment and order dated 08.10.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court is hereby set aside. The order dated 14.05.2002 passed by the appellant-Department is upheld. 14. The appeal alongwith CMA are disposed of. 15. The original record be handed over to the learned State Counsel. __________