JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure P-4 and of Annexure P-5, whereunder, respectively the representation made by the petitioner for hers being considered for promotion to the post of Chief Librarian stood rejected, whereas, under Annexure P-5, respondent No. 2 stood appointed as Chief Librarian. The crucial facts warranting their imperative allusion, for a effective adjudication being rendered upon the extant lis, are, of consequent upon the selection and appointment of Smt. Santosh Negi, Chief Librarian to the post of Court Secretary in the year, 2009, hence post of Chief Librarian falling vacant. Besides the petitioner, one Het Ram Garg, Brij Lal Sharma, Rajinder Singh Kanwar and Dharam Pal Sharma, also aspired for being considered for selection for the aforesaid vacancy. All the aforesaid, hence, made separate representations, for theirs being considered for selection and appointment to the aforesaid post. Their representations were rejected and the Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted a committee comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, for determining the respective claims of the remaining aspirants to the post of Chief Librarian, aspirants whereof were respectively the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The Committee after considering the competing claim of the aspirants concerned, also after its making an in depth analysis of the apposite rules, rejected the claim of the petitioner, whereas, it accepted the claim of respondent No. 2, besides given the latter, not, satiating the essential requisite educational qualification, of his being a graduate, recommended for apposite relaxations in respect thereto being meted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The then Hon'ble Chief Justice accepted the recommendations of the Committee. Moreover, the Hon'ble Chief Justice, relaxed the requisite educational qualifications of respondent No. 2. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner constitutes an onslaught upon the impugned annexures, on the trite anvil of: (a) respondent No. 2 being appointed as a clerk in the year 1992, whereas, hers being appointed in the year 1988, hence her induction in service occurring prior to respondent No. 2, thereupon, her seniority being computable from the time of her induction in service vis-a-vis the later thereto, time of induction in service of respondent No. 2, with a concomitant countervailing besides frustrating, effect upon, the claim of respondent No. 2 for his being considered for selection and appointment to the post of Chief Librarian. (b) Hers holding the post of Senior Assistant at the time contemporaneous to the occurrence of the apposite vacancy, also with the post of Senior Assistant, holding, a pay scale at par with the pay scale of a librarian, hence, hers being construable to be a librarian, post whereof comprising the apposite feeder channels, amongst others posts besides streams, mentioned in the apposite R & P Rules, for leveraging the aspirants' claim for selection and appointment against the post of Chief Librarian. Apposite Rules stand extracted hereinafter:- Name of the Post No. of posts Mode of appointment Qualification Experience length of service in feeder cadre Scale of pay Chief Librarian 1. (i) Be selection from amongst: (a) Librarians (b) Deputy Superintendents. (c) Revisors on the basis of merit-cum-length of service in the existing scale. Graduation with Diploma in Library Science or Degree in Library Science. Five years in case of Graduate with Diploma in Library Science. Rs. 7800-220-8100-275-10,300-340-11,660 + S.A. Rs. 400/- (ii) By direct recruitment in case candidates referred to at (i) with requisite qualifications and experience are not available. Graduation + Degree in Library Science Three years in case of Degree in Library Science. (c) Revisors on the basis of merit-cum-length of service in the existing scale. Graduation with Diploma in Library Science or Degree in Library Science. Five years in case of Graduate with Diploma in Library Science. Rs. 7800-220-8100-275-10,300-340-11,660 + S.A. Rs. 400/- (ii) By direct recruitment in case candidates referred to at (i) with requisite qualifications and experience are not available. Graduation + Degree in Library Science Three years in case of Degree in Library Science. (c) Thereafter, her counsel espouses of hers being rendered eligible for being considered at par with the post of Librarian, imperatively when preceding thereto, the meeting's of the benefits of aspired for, apposite relaxations, vis-a-vis her or thereupon hence alikeness in the relaxations meted vis-a-vis want of requisite educational qualification held by respondent No. 2, would ensure, emanations of upsurging's qua equality/parity in the apposite meeting's inter se them. 3. 3. Before adjudicating upon the aforesaid contentions addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is worthwhile, to, mention that respondent No. 2, had, prior to his being considered for selection and appointment, to the post of Chief Librarian in the Library of the High Court, held, the posts, respectively of Assistant Librarian and of Librarian. The Committee had meted reverence, to, the length of experience possessed by respondent No. 2, whereas, wants thereof, apart therefrom, lack of, other disqualificatory factors vis-a-vis the petitioner, constrained the Committee, to, reject her representation. Consequently, with the petitioner, not, challenging the respective appointments of respondent No. 2 initially, to, the post of Assistant Librarian and subsequently to the post of Librarian, the latter whereof is, one, amongst the feeder categories constituted in the apposite Rules, for enabling the aspirants to stake a tenable claim, for being considered for selection besides appointment to the post of Chief Librarian, renders an inference of the petitioner being estopped, to, now espouse, of, the appointments of respondent No. 2, respectively as a Assistant Librarian and as a Librarian, suffering from any invalidity; (b) rather with hers at the stage, of, respondent No. 2 standing selected and appointed as an Assistant Librarian and as a Librarian, hence, falling in a category besides a stream of service, not, embodied in the apposite rules, to be one amongst the envisaged streams or feeder categories, renders her disabled to, hence compete with respondent No. 2, for selection besides appointment to the post of Chief Librarian, despite hers possessing a higher educational qualification vis-a-vis respondent No. 2, also despite hers holding a degree in Library Science. The apt inference therefrom is of with the petitioner, not, falling in any of the feeder categories constituted in the apposite rules, thereupon, she cannot leverage a strong claim for her candidature being considered for selection besides appointment to the post of Chief Librarian. 4. The apposite Rule 22 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and the members of the Staff (Recruitment, conditions of service, conduct and Appeal) Rules, 2003), which stand extracted hereinafter:- “22. 4. The apposite Rule 22 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and the members of the Staff (Recruitment, conditions of service, conduct and Appeal) Rules, 2003), which stand extracted hereinafter:- “22. Relaxation: The Chief Justice may, from time to time, to remove any hardship in an individual case or in case of any class or group of cases, relax any condition or any requirement as it relates to age, qualification or minimum experience, as is or may be prescribed in or under these Rules.” In exercise of relaxing discretions encapsulated therein, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice meted relaxations vis-avis respondent No. 2, specifically, qua want of the latter, not, possessing the requisite educational qualifications, remains unchallenged. In sequel, with the petitioner, not, challenging the vires of the apposite rules, bolsters an inference, of, the Committee of Hon'ble Judges, making (a) an in depth scrutiny of the rival claims of the petitioner and of respondent No. 2 for theirs being respectively considered for selection to the post of Chief Librarian, (b) thereafter, it recommending, the candidature of respondent No. 2, (c) whereas, its recommending vis-a-vis the Hon'ble Chief Justice, for rejecting the representation of the petitioner, (d) besides its apt recommendations, for according relaxations vis-a-vis respondent No. 2 for his not holding thereat the requisite educational qualification, (e) both recommendations whereof stood affirmatively accepted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, (f) the satisfaction drawn's by the Committee of Hon'ble Judges in rejecting the representation of the writ petitioner, whereas, its accepting the representation of respondent No. 2, also the further affirmative satisfactions drawn by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, are all thereupon, to be concluded to be beyond the scrutiny of the writ Court, on the trite threshold of any purported mala-fides or arbitrariness, being ingrained therein, especially when no specific ascriptions thereof are ventilated in the writ petition. 5. 5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that with the petitioner, at the time contemporaneous of the accrual of the vacancy of Chief Librarian, holding, the post of Senior Assistant, pay scale whereof being, at par, with the pay scale of a Librarian, hence after hers being meted the apposite relaxations, as, meted vis-a-vis respondent No. 2 qua his not, at the relevant time, holding the requisite educational qualification, hers hence being construable to be a Librarian, whereas, the apposite relaxation being, not, arbitrarily meted vis-a-vis her, renders the impugned Annexures, to suffer from a vice of invalidity. In making the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner misreads besides misinterprets, the apposite Rules, specifically the trite factum (i) of the prescribed mode of appointments and (ii) of qualifications, being respectively borne in distinct columns, of, the apposite Rules. The occurrence, in distinct columns of the apposite Rules, respectively, of, variant streams and the feeder categories, wherein the aspirants, are, enjoined to peremptorily occur and of the qualifications, they are imperatively required, to, hence possess at the time of accrual of the vacancies, does foster an inference (iii) of the power vested, in the Hon'ble Chief Justice under Rule 22 of the R & P Rules, given the phrase “relax any condition or any requirement as it relates to age, qualification or minimum experience” occurring therein, carrying the parlance, of the aforesaid underlined discretions, of, meteing relaxations, only, appertaining to any condition or any requirement, also the apt phrases “condition or any requirement”, holding an explicit candid signification, of, each/both enjoining ascription of similar meanings thereto, (iv) thereupon, the statutory coinage, “condition or any requirement” in respect whereof the power of relaxation is conferred upon the Hon'ble Chief Justice, being amenable to a construction of its might being restricted in respect of age, qualification or minimal experience, as prescribed under the apposite Rules. Consequently, with the power of relaxation being restricted besides trammeled, inasmuch as, its clout operating vis-a-vis “any requirement or condition” appertaining, to, only age, qualification or minimal experience prescribed, for posts falling vacant in any establishment of the High Court (v) thereupon, the factum of occurrence of variant streams or of apposite feeder categories in a column, distinct from the column appertaining to qualification, besides with the column appertaining to “mode of appointment” wherein the feeder categories occur, enjoining the aspirants concerned, to, without any relaxation in respect thereof, being validly meted, hence imperatively possess them, at the stage of accrual of vacancies, stems an inference, (vi) of the feeder category of Librarian, constituted, in column No. 4 of the apposite Rules, apposite to the post which fell vacant, hence, warranting each of the aspirants, to at the relevant time peremptorily hold it, irrespective of any of them holding a pay scale at par with the pay scale of a Librarian. In other words, the mere factum of the petitioner at the time contemporaneous vis-a-vis the accrual of vacancy of a Chief Librarian, hers, holding a pay scale at par with the pay scale of a Librarian, would not, render her to be construable to be a Librarian, given the Rules holding an explicit contemplation, of, each of the aspirants at the relevant stage, hence holding the post of a Librarian, whereas, theirs, not, prescribing that given any aspirant holding any post in the establishment of this High Court, post whereof holds a pay scale at par with an aspirant holding the post of a Librarian, per se, rendering the aspirant concerned to be fit to stake a valid claim, to the post of Chief Librarian, thereupon, also the espousal of the petitioners falls apart. The further effect of the aforesaid contradistinctivities) of occurrences of modes of appointment or streams or feeder categories, in a column distinct from the qualification column, in one amongst streams whereof, the aspirant concerned, at the time contemporaneous to the occurrence of vacancies, hence ought to imperatively fall, also with this Court, on an interpretation, of apposite Rule 22, holding, that the discretion to mete relaxation vis-a-vis the aspirants concerned being limited with respect to age, qualification and minimal experience, contrarily with the apposite Rules, being, not, construed to be leveraging in the Hon'ble Chief Justice, any discretion to mete relaxations qua the aspirants concerned, not falling, in any one of the mandated streams or feeder categories also constrains an inference of the power of relaxation exercised by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vis-a-vis respondent No. 2, for want of his, not, holding the requisite educational qualifications, being in consonance with the apposite rules, whereas, want of exercise thereof, by, the Hon'ble Chief Justice vis-a-vis the petitioner specifically qua hers, not falling, in any mandated streams also not suffering from any vice of any invalidation. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.