JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the person who filed an application, which has not however been allowed, for impleadment as the petitioner, as well as Mr. T.D. Majumdar, learned G.A. for the State respondents No. 1 and 3 and Mr. S.M. Chakaborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2, 4, 5 & 6. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the respondents Nos. 4-6 by the impugned order. In respect of respondents No. 5 and 6, the order of appointment as sought to be challenged, has not been placed on record. 3. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has categorically stated that the respondents No. 5 & 6 were appointed much earlier and they are working in the post of Supervisor which is the feeder post for appointment on promotion to the post of Senior Supervisor and according to Mr. Chakraborty, the respondents No. 5 & 6 are unnecessarily made party in this case. This is a thoughtless venture. 4. Be that as it may, thus the order promoting the respondent No. 4 to the post of Comptroller of Governor’s Household (Class-I Gazetted) Raj Bhawan under No. F.3(4-1)-RBE/2015/5544-51 dated 21.09.2015 (Anenxure-6 to the writ petition) has been challenged in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, non-consideration of his case for promotion to the said post of Comptroller of Governor’s Household is entirely arbitrary and colourable exercise of power in breach of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and thus this Court should interfere with the said order dated 21.09.2015. 5. Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has having referred to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Comptroller of Governor’s Household submitted that Rule 8 of the said Recruitment Rules clearly provides that the educational qualification for direct recruitment though will apply in the case of promotion but that can be relaxed. He has clearly submitted that the petitioner is a diploma holder and not a degree holder from a recognized university. He has clearly submitted that the petitioner is a diploma holder and not a degree holder from a recognized university. Before creation of the zone of consideration, the educational qualification for purpose of promotion to the post of Comptroller of Governor’s Household should have been relaxed in consideration of the additional qualification which the petitioner has. Mr. Dasgupta on such premise has further submitted that the respondent No. 4 does not have any additional qualification as required by the Recruitment Rules as the desirable qualifications. 6. From the other side, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2, 4, 5 & 6 has emphatically submitted that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the order dated 21.09.2015 (Anenxure-6 to the writ petition) as the petitioner lacks in the basic and essential qualification to be considered for promotion. The respondent No. 4 is a Bachelor of Science from University of Calcutta obtained in the year 1985. After initial appointment, he was appointed to the post of Protocol Officer which is a Group-B gazetted post. However, he has fairly admitted that the petitioner is also a Group-B gazetted officer for his appointment to the post of Senior Supervisor in the Governor’s Secretariat. 7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has therefore contended that in terms of Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules the petitioner was borne in the feeder post, inasmuch as Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules of the Comptroller of Governor’s Household provides as under: "Recruitment Rules for the post of Comptroller of Household in the Governors Household, Raj Bhavan, Government of Tripura:- 11. In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer, grades from which promotion/deputation/ transfer is to be made. Group "A" or Group "B" personnel serving under the State Govt. of Tripura or any other State or Central Govt. having at least a total service of 10 years. Persons having experience in Raj Bhavan/Military or Para-military Forces Mess shall be preferred." (Emphasis added) 8. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 have fulfilled the requirement of Rule-11 as stated, but what surfaces further is that the petitioner does not have the essential qualification as provided under clause (i) of Rule 7 of the said Rules i.e. degree of a recognized University, though the petitioner has a diploma in Hotel Management. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 have fulfilled the requirement of Rule-11 as stated, but what surfaces further is that the petitioner does not have the essential qualification as provided under clause (i) of Rule 7 of the said Rules i.e. degree of a recognized University, though the petitioner has a diploma in Hotel Management. On the face of the records, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Comptroller of Governor’s Household in the ordinary course. 9. However, it cannot be denied that the rules provide the relaxation of the qualification may be granted by the competent authority. Whether the relaxation would be provided, it falls in the discretion of the appointing authority. Ordinarily, when in the feeder post persons having all the qualification and experience are available, there cannot be any occasion for relaxation. Only when a situation so emerges that no person having the qualification or experience as required by the Recruitment Rules is available then the appointing authority may exercise its discretion to relax the qualification. Relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right, inasmuch as, it in all the occasions does an act of compromise with the standard required for appointment to the post. It is made as a measure of urgency. 10. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that no person can have an indefeasible right to claim relaxation. 11. It is wholly in the domain of the appointing authority or the executive whether such relaxation would be granted in the given circumstances or not, even if no person is available. The competent authority even may not relax the condition, if they think that they can manage the affairs without appointing anyone or make alternative arrangements. They are allowed to wait for the competent persons to come within the zone of consideration. 12. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the entire process of selection of the respondent No. 4 and hence this petition being bereft of merit stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. In view of the order passed, the petition for addition of party in the writ petition filed through Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel being IA No. 01/2017 stands dismissed.