JUDGMENT : The Recruitment Notification issued by the second respondent/Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB) in Notification No.01/MRB/2015, dated 12.09.2018 is sought to be quashed and a direction is sought for against the respondents to conduct the recruitment examination afresh for the selection of Nurses in the service of 1st respondent/department and pass further orders. 2. The cause for filing of the present writ petition arose on account of the fact that the respondents have appointed candidates over and above the notified vacancies in the recruitment conducted in the year 2015. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that they are not selected and no opportunity to participate in the process of selection was provided, which is in violation of the equality clause enunciated in the Constitution of India. Without even conducting the process of selection by following the recruitment rules in force, the respondents are going on appointing candidates, from and out of the unsuccessful candidates from the erstwhile list, with reference to the selection conducted by the second respondent, pursuant to the Notification given in the year 2015. 3. In other words, beyond the selected candidates, persons who have participated in the process of selection pursuant to the Notification dated 19.04.2015 were appointed, knowing the fact that those candidates were unsuccessful in the process of selection. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, it is not only an illegal act but also in violation of the equality clause under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner urged this Court by stating that if such appointments are allowed to continue, then the entire constitutional principles are violated and the respondents may not be correct in appointing the unsuccessful candidates from and out of selection list prepared pursuant to the recruitment notification of the year 2015. 4. It is contended that those unsuccessful candidates in the process of selection in the year 2015 were appointed by granting relaxation to Rule 7 of the Medical Services Recruitment Board Rules. The Rule 7 of the MRB Rules speaks about the reserve list. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that by relaxing Rule 7 of the MRB Rules they have appointed candidates beyond the names listed out in the reserve list and the candidates who were appointed were unsuccessful in the process of selection. The Rule 7 of the MRB Rules speaks about the reserve list. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that by relaxing Rule 7 of the MRB Rules they have appointed candidates beyond the names listed out in the reserve list and the candidates who were appointed were unsuccessful in the process of selection. Though the rules relating to the reserve list were relaxed, the persons who were not even included in the reserve list were appointed. Thus the action in entirety is perverse and unconstitutional. In fact, the rule restrictions imposed in the reserve list to include 10% of the candidates were violated and excess number of candidates were appointed, over and above the notified vacancies and beyond the permissible limit and the reserve list contemplated under the MRB Rules. 5. At the outset, it is contended that the entire process of selection was made as a mockery and the State, as a model employer, failed in its duty to honour the Constitutional Principles. The constitutional rights of the eligible candidates are infringed and they are deprived of their opportunity to participate in the process of selection for the purpose of securing public employment. 6. Narrating the entire events that excess appointments were made over and above the notified vacancies, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission before this Court that such en masse relaxation of rules is highly unwarranted and the said relaxation led to corrupt activities in the process of selection. When there is no necessity to grant an en masse relaxation of the rules relating to the reserve list, a factual inference could be drawn from and out of such facts and circumstances to the effect that there is a possibility of corrupt activities, which cannot be ruled out. 7. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner urged this Court by stating that if such appointments are allowed to continue, then the candidates who all are waiting and longing to participate in the process of selection would not have got an opportunity even to participate in the process of selection, which would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that undoubtedly, a notification was issued in the year 2015, for recruitment to the post of Nurses numbering 7,243. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that undoubtedly, a notification was issued in the year 2015, for recruitment to the post of Nurses numbering 7,243. It is an admitted fact that 7102 candidates were selected and a select list was drawn. Out of 7102 selected candidates, 7090 candidates were issued with the order of appointment and from and out of the order of appointment, only 6254 candidates joined in post of Nurses. 6254 candidates joined and thereafter 683 candidates joined, whose names were listed in the reserve list. It is pertinent to note that 66 candidates joined and subsequently resigned the job and 87 candidates remained absent unauthorizedly. 9. This being the basic details of recruitment process of selection conducted pursuant to the recruitment Notification dated 19.04.2015, the learned Additional Advocate General made a submission that certain factual circumstances that prevailed in the Department prompted the authorities competent to proceed with further appointments, based on the selection list prepared during the year 2015. 10. The learned Additional Advocate General relying on the counter affidavit, made a submission that on account of certain factual circumstances prevailing in the Government hospitals and Government Primary Health Centers and pursuant to the order of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation, the department was under pressure to fill up the post of Nurses in the Medical Department. 11. Under those circumstances, the respondents had taken a decision to relax Rule 7 of the MRB Rules and accordingly, appointed the candidates who had participated in the process of selection pursuant to the notification dated 19.04.2015. It is an admitted fact that candidates over and above the notified vacancies were appointed as Nurses by relaxing Rule 7 of the MRB Rules. It is an admitted fact that those Nurses who were appointed over and above the notified vacancies were unsuccessful candidates in the process of selection. It is an admitted fact that the Rule 7 of MRB Rules with reference to the maintenance of reserve list was relaxed by the Government by invoking the power of relaxation. It is contended that the State is obligated to fill up the post of Nurses on account of the acute shortage and there was no time to conduct the process of selection by the second respondent/Medical Services Recruitment Board. It is contended that the State is obligated to fill up the post of Nurses on account of the acute shortage and there was no time to conduct the process of selection by the second respondent/Medical Services Recruitment Board. Thus the candidates in excess were appointed only on contractual basis and those candidates were yet to be regularized in the sanctioned posts in the regular time scale of pay. Thus, the contract appointments were made for a consolidated pay and it is informed that the consolidated pay has now been enhanced to Rs.14,000/-. However, these excess appointments over and above the notified vacancies were made in order to mitigate the circumstances that arose in Government hospitals. Even, the enhancement of the consolidated pay was made by the State on account of the intervention by the Court and on account of the fact that these consolidated pay employees had conducted strikes and Dharnas. 12. Be that as it may, the fact remains that these candidates who were unsuccessful in the process of selection were appointed on contractual basis on consolidated pay. They are now continuing in service for about three years. Their services are not regularized and they are not brought under the regular establishment in the sanctioned posts in regular time scale of pay, as applicable to the regular Government employees. 13. The issues involved in these writ petitions and the cause for filing the present writ petitions are of constitutional importance. The issues cannot be decided by the Court by redressing the remedy or restricting the remedy to the writ petitioner alone. Larger questions raised in the writ petition by stating that the State has violated Articles 14 and 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India are also to be addressed. 14. When Fundamental Rights of the citizens are violated, the constitutional Courts are duty bound to examine and arrive at a conclusion, whether there is any such violation established or not and if it is established, then appropriate reliefs are to be granted, in order to protect the Fundamental Rights of all the citizens. The Courts cannot go by the “individualization of the justice”. The concept of “individualization of justice” is permissible in cases, where the disputes are confined between the parties to the lis before the Court. The Courts cannot go by the “individualization of the justice”. The concept of “individualization of justice” is permissible in cases, where the disputes are confined between the parties to the lis before the Court. However, such individualization of justice cannot be extended in cases where violation of the Fundamental Rights are raised by the parties before the Constitutional Courts. Thus, a distinction is to be drawn in respect of providing justice to the individual litigants and the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizens as a whole. This is the reason why the jurisdiction of the Courts are extended to pass orders in rem in certain cases and the High Courts are bound to issue such order in the interest of providing complete justice to the citizens and to protect the constitutional principles as well as the equality clause enunciated in the Constitution, under various Articles. 15. What is important in the present writ petition is the specific violation now brought to the notice of this Court, that the State has appointed unsuccessful candidates in the process of selection to the post of Nurses and thereby deprived equal opportunity of public employment to all the eligible candidates, who all are aspiring to secure public employment by participating in the open competitive process. Undoubtedly, it is the serious allegation made in the writ petition by the writ petitioners. 16. State cannot discriminate the citizens. State is bound to provide equal opportunity to all the citizens. State is obligated to follow the recruitment rules strictly and without any violation. Ways and means cannot be adopted for the purpose of diluting the recruitment rules, and during such process, undoubtedly, there is a scope for corrupt activities. Thus, the importance of following and adhering the recruitment rules is a constitutional mandate in order to provide a transparent public employment and also enabling the citizens to get their Fundamental Right of equal opportunity under the Constitution. 17. Admittedly, the present writ petition is filed challenging the notification dated 12.09.2018. The writ petitioners have challenged the current notification of the year 2018, from and out of the fresh recruitments caused on such irregular appointments which were made over and above the selected candidates in the year 2015. The writ petitioners were waiting for an opportunity to participate in the process of selection. The writ petitioners have challenged the current notification of the year 2018, from and out of the fresh recruitments caused on such irregular appointments which were made over and above the selected candidates in the year 2015. The writ petitioners were waiting for an opportunity to participate in the process of selection. However, the respondents were going on appointing unsuccessful candidates from and out of the selection list prepared pursuant to the recruitment notification in the year 2015. This resulted in filing of the present writ petition. 18. The writ petitioners filed the writ petition, undoubtedly, with a genuine cause to preserve Fundamental Rights of equal opportunity in public employment. The writ petitioners are undoubtedly fighting to avoid discrimination in the matter of providing public employment by the State. The writ petition is filed in order to protect the constitutional rights as well as equal opportunity in public employment. This being the very issue raised in the present writ petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, based on the counter affidavit filed, that they are not going to conduct any fresh selection pursuant to the notification need not be accepted. There is no impediment for the State to proceed with the selection in accordance with the recruitment rules. State should continue to periodically appoint candidates to the post of Nurses. The post of Nurses is of paramount important in maintaining the Health Department intact. Medical facility is now declared as mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, there cannot be any compromise in respect of maintaining the Government hospitals, appointment of Doctors and Nurses and Paramedical staff, so as to extend free medical facility to the poor people, who all are suffering from various ailments. 19. This being the constitutional right, this Court is of the opinion that the State is bound to fill up the post of Doctors and Nurses and other Paramedical staff enabling the citizens to avail the medical facility at free of cost, in Government hospitals. 20. However, in the process of making such appointments, the State Authorities must be cautious enough in the matter of implementation of the recruitment rules and providing of equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates, who are all willing to secure the public employment. 21. 20. However, in the process of making such appointments, the State Authorities must be cautious enough in the matter of implementation of the recruitment rules and providing of equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates, who are all willing to secure the public employment. 21. The Government issued two orders in G.O.(3D).No.80, Health and Family Welfare (AA1) Department dated 08.07.2016 and G.O.(3D).No.49 Health and Family Welfare (AA1)Department dated 16.10.2017. In the said two Government orders, the Government relaxed Rule 7 of the MRB Rules to take necessary steps to fill up 1947 additional vacancies from the reserve list of candidates available from the competitive examination held vide MRB Notification No.01/2015 dated 19.04.2015, by following the due procedures in relaxation of the Rule 7 prescribed in G.O.(Ms).No.36, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 12.02.2014. In respect of G.O.(3D).No.49, the Government order is to release the 1170 candidates available from the reserve list in the competitive examination held during the year 2015 for the post of Nurses, by similarly relaxing Rule 7 of the MRB Rules. 22. Let us now examine if such relaxations are in accordance with the principles of law settled by the Courts. 23. First of all, let us examine the manner in which the two Government orders are passed. The first Government order issued in G.O.(3D).No.80, Health and Family Welfare (AA1) Department dated 08.07.2016 states that the Government examined the proposal of the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services carefully and decided to permit Medical Services Recruitment Board to take necessary steps to fill up 1947 additional vacancies from the reserve list of candidates available from the competitive examination held vide MRB Notification No.01/2015 dated 19.04.2015 by following the due procedures in relaxation of the Rule 7 prescribed in G.O.(Ms).No.36, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 12.02.2014. However, by invoking which provisions of rule, the relaxation which was granted has not been stated in the Government order at all, and under which rule, the power was traced out, has also not been stated. Contrarily, the Government issued an order merely relaxing Rule 7 of the MRB Rules and granted permission to the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services to fill up 1947 additional vacancies from the reserve list. Thus, the Government order itself is not in accordance with the service rules. Contrarily, the Government issued an order merely relaxing Rule 7 of the MRB Rules and granted permission to the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services to fill up 1947 additional vacancies from the reserve list. Thus, the Government order itself is not in accordance with the service rules. Even in the second Government order, issued in G.O.(3D).No.49, Health and Family Welfare (AA1) Department dated 16.10.2017, the similar order was passed. In the said Government order also, it is not clearly mentioned under which provision of law, the Government relaxed the rule relating to the recruitment more specifically, Rule 7 of the MRB rules. 24. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner solicited the attention of this Court in respect of the second Government order issued in G.O.(3D).No.49 dated 16.10.2017, which was newly created post and not in connection with the recruitment conducted during the year 2015. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the vacancies created or identified after the completion of the process of selection in the year 2015 were filled up from and out of candidates who were unsuccessful in the selection of the year 2015. Such an action is drastically unconstitutional and in fact, the State failed to be a model employer and further failed in its duty to adhere the Constitutional principles. If such actions of the State are permitted, undoubtedly, the Constitutional Courts are also failing in their duty to protect the constitutional principles as well as the Fundamental Rights of the citizens who are all longing to secure public employment under the constitutional schemes and by following the recruitment rules in force. Thus, it is not as if the State may be permitted to fill up these posts, which were newly created from and out of unsuccessful candidates, who participated in the process of selection of the year 2015. The actions are absolutely unconstitutional and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a classic case where constitutional Court has to protect the Fundamental Rights of all the eligible citizens, who all are waiting to secure public employment through the open competitive process. 25. The very constitution of the Medical Services Recruitment Board was constituted admittedly, during the year 2012 as per the rules which was issued in G.O.(3D).No.36, Health and Family Welfare (C2) Department dated 12.02.2014. 25. The very constitution of the Medical Services Recruitment Board was constituted admittedly, during the year 2012 as per the rules which was issued in G.O.(3D).No.36, Health and Family Welfare (C2) Department dated 12.02.2014. The Medical Services Recruitment Board is duty bound to conduct the selection every year. 26. Relevant Rules of Procedure of the Medical Services Recruitment Board is extracted hereunder: (i) The Medical Services Recruitment Board shall call for the estimate of vacancies from the Heads of Departments as on 1st January of every year. The estimate of vacancy shall reach Medical Services Recruitment Board on or before 1st December of every year, from the Directorate concerned and the estimation period in normal course, shall be from 1st January to 31st December of every year. The Board shall call for the estimate of future vacancies from the Heads of Departments. (ii) The Board shall call for the list of suitable candidates for future vacancies from the Employment Exchange or call for open advertisement, as the case may be. The Medical Services Recruitment Board shall consolidate and recruit candidates as per the seniority list furnished by the Directorate of Employment and Training, except in cases where recruitment is permitted to be made through open advertisement and written examination. 27. When the rules of procedure of the Medical Services Recruitment Board, which is a constitutionally recognized body, provides that every year, recruitment has to be conducted to fill up the posts, no action is taken in the manner prescribed in the Rules. Contrarily, the respondent/Medical Board conducted selection during the year 2015 and thereafter, the State as well as the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, went on appointing unsuccessful candidates who participated in the process of selection of the year 2015. Such actions can never be accepted by Constitutional Courts as it infringes the Fundamental Rights of the eligible candidates, who are all longing to secure public employment. 28. The power of relaxation extended to the Government shall be exercised only on exceptional circumstances, in order to redress the grievance where there is injustice caused to the employees. Rule of relaxation cannot be exercised in a routine manner and also the relaxation cannot be granted on misplaced sympathy, wherever initial appointments were not made in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. 29. The erstwhile Tamil Nadu Sub-ordinate Service Rules deals with the power of relaxation. Rule of relaxation cannot be exercised in a routine manner and also the relaxation cannot be granted on misplaced sympathy, wherever initial appointments were not made in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. 29. The erstwhile Tamil Nadu Sub-ordinate Service Rules deals with the power of relaxation. After the enactment namely Tamil Nadu Service and Conditions of Rules 2016 Section 58 provides power of deal with certain cases and the same reads as under: 58. Power of Deal with Certain Cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the special rules, the Governor shall have power to deal with the case of any person or class of persons serving in a civil capacity under the Government or of any person who has or of any class of persons who have served a aforesaid or any candidate or class of candidates for appointment to a service in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable. Provided that, where any provision of this Act or special rules is applicable to the case of any person or class of persons, the case shall not be dealt with in any manner less favourable to him or them than that provided by that rule. Interpretation This is a special provision to enable the Governor of the State to relax any provision of this Act or any service rules in favour of an individual who deserves and it can be invoked to prevent any hardship and injustice in respect of his appointment, promotion, etc. In deserving cases, the provision of this Act or rule can be relaxed with retrospective effect. However, in such cases generally monetary benefit with retrospective effect will not be given unless and until the Court orders So. In the U.O Note No.23744/93-1 P & AR (per. S) Department dated 01.04.1993, the following general instructions were issued to be followed for relaxation of the provision of this Act or rules: 1. All service sections in Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department may be requested to consider the following points while scrutinizing the proposals for relaxation of Special/Ad hoc rules received from the Departments of Secretariat: (i) Whether there is any dearth of qualified hands; (ii) Whether considerable hardship will be caused to the administration, if relaxation is not given; (iii) Whether the existing rule caused unintended hardship to the person concerned; (iv) Details of other individuals similarly placed. A Consolidated proposal for relaxation in respect of category concerned should be called for and examined, as individual cases may not bring home the magnitude of the problem. 2. All personnel Sections may be requested to follow the above instructions scrupulously. The following simple illustration will explain the situation well: Illustration. (i)''A'' is an Assistant working in the Revenue Department from 12.06.1988. As per the Special rules Governing the post of Deputy Tahsildhar, an Assistant should have rendered service in that post for 5 years and should have undergone Revenue Inspector training for a period of three years for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildhar. This rule was newly introduced with effect from 01.04.1991. A panel of Assistants fit for appointment to the post of Deputy tahsildhar as on 01.10.1993 is prepared. The eligible Assistants are to be considered for promotion. In this case ''A'' has the experience for a period of 2 years and 6 months only. There is a shortage of 6 months only. There is a shortage of 6 months. Though he has Assistant from 12.06.1990, as the rule was introduced from 01.04.1991 and he had the chance to undergo the R.I. Training from that date only, he could not complete the required training period of three years. He is the senior most Assistant to be included in the panel. He is otherwise qualified. The rule creates the hardship to ''A''. The Governor can invoke the power vested under this section and relax the relevant special rule in favour of ''A'' for the purpose of his appointment as Deputy Tahsildhar. (ii). Relaxation of test qualification. As per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 1120 P & AR (Per. M) dated 30.10.1984 for relaxation of rules to exempt a Government Servant from passing special and depart mental tests for promotion, he should fulfil the following conditions: (a) The person should be not less than 53 years of age. (b) He should have made at least 5 attempts to pass the tests and for this, there should be evidence in the Service Register or he should produce the evidence for having appeared for the examination and failed. (c) He should have satisfactory service records to get the concessions. 30. (b) He should have made at least 5 attempts to pass the tests and for this, there should be evidence in the Service Register or he should produce the evidence for having appeared for the examination and failed. (c) He should have satisfactory service records to get the concessions. 30. Thus the very issuance of the two Government Orders were improper and not in consonance with the power of relaxation provided under the erstwhile rules as well as under the new Act. 31. The object of the power of relaxing the rules is obviously to neutralise an injustice as a result of operation of any rule. It has been described to be the reserve power to deal with the unforeseen situations or circumstances and it is to be exercised in the public interest with a view to maintain integrity and efficiency in service. It is conferred upon the Government to meet any emergent situations where injustice might have been caused to any individual employee or class of employees or where the working of the rule might have become impossible. Where the power of relaxation is conferred upon the Government (or the Governor), the Court cannot usurp the power and directly or indirectly effect a relaxation. 32. In interpreting provisions for relaxation, it has been pointed out that the power of relaxation even if generally included in the Service Rules could either be for the purpose of mitigating hardship or to meet a special and deserving situation. Any arbitrary exercise of such power must be guarded against and that the rule of relaxation must get pragmatic construction, so as to achieve effective implementation of good policy. 33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Suraj Prakash Gupta and Others vs. State of J&K and Others [ (2000) 7 SCC 561 ], reiterated the principles, in paragraph-32, as under:- “32. On facts, the reasons given in the Cabinet note for granting relaxation are hopelessly insufficient. In fact, the letter of the Commission dated 25-11-1997, shows that the Commission was prepared to give its opinion in regard to regularisation of each promotee but the Government backed out when the Commission called for the records relevant for considering suitability for regular promotion. In our view, there can be no hardship for a person seeking appointment or promotion to go by the procedure prescribed therefor. In our view, there can be no hardship for a person seeking appointment or promotion to go by the procedure prescribed therefor. The relevant Recruitment Rule for promotion cannot itself be treated as one producing hardship. Narender Chadha case [ (1986) 2 SCC 157 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 226] must be treated as an exception and not as a rule. In fact, if such relaxation is permitted in favour of the promotees then the same yardstick may have to be applied for direct recruits. In fact the J&K Government has already started to do so and this has not been accepted by this Court in Narinder Mohan case [ (1994) 2 SCC 630 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 723 : (1994) 27 ATC 56] and Dr Surinder Singh Jamwal case [ (1996) 9 SCC 619 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1296] referred to above. If it is to be held that direct recruitment can also be permitted without consulting the Service Commission (in case it is required to be consulted there will, in our opinion, be total chaos in the recruitment process and it will lead to backdoor recruitment at the whims and fancies of the Government). Such a blanket power of relaxation of Recruitment Rules cannot be implied in favour of the Government.” 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shri Amrik Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others [ (1980) 3 SCC 393 ], discussed the principles regarding the rule of relaxation, His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, speaking for the Bench, emphatically ruled the legal principles as under:- “Government must be satisfied, not subjectively but objectively, that any rule or regulation affecting the conditions of service of a member of the All India Services causes undue hardship, then the iniquitous consequence thereof may be relieved against by relaxation of the concerned Rule or Regulation. There must be undue hardship and, further the relaxation must promote the dealing with the case “in a just and equitable manner”. These are perfectly sensible guidelines. What is more, there is implicit in the Rule, the compliance with natural justice so that nobody may be adversely affected even by administrative action without a hearing. We are unable to see anything unreasonable, capricious or deprivatory of the rights of anyone in this residuary power vested in the Central Government. These are perfectly sensible guidelines. What is more, there is implicit in the Rule, the compliance with natural justice so that nobody may be adversely affected even by administrative action without a hearing. We are unable to see anything unreasonable, capricious or deprivatory of the rights of anyone in this residuary power vested in the Central Government. Indeed, the present case is an excellent illustration of the proper exercise of the power. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Central Government was right in invoking its power to relax and regularize the spell of officiation, which was impugned as irregular or illegal. The consequence inevitably follows that the officer Ahluwalia was rightly assigned 1961 as the year of allotment.” 35. Thus, this Court is also of the opinion that the power to grant and exemption, cannot be exercised in a manner to destroy the general provision from which the exemption is granted. For example, where the number of exemptees is far in excess of vacancies and render the chances of qualifiers illusory. 36. This Court is of the firm opinion that if a rule of relaxation is invoked in a routine manner it will amount to neutralizing and degrading the recruitment rules in force. A striking balance in between has to be adopted while exercising the powers of relaxation by the Competent Authorities. The process of recruitment and appointment shall be made only by following the recruitment rules in fore. In other words all appointments are to be made strictly by adhering the recruitment rules in force. Thus, the rule of relaxation is an exception and such an exception is to be exercised cautiously and sparingly in order to rectify the injustice caused to a particular case. Thus, the relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the candidates. 37. Rule of relaxation is a discretion granted to the Government and such a discretionary power has to be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner. Relaxation being a discretionary power has to be exercised by the competent authorities by applying the facts in a particular case and not in a mechanical way to grant certain service benefits to the similarly placed persons. Granting relaxation in one case by the Government cannot be cited as a precedent in other cases. In view of the fact that the relaxation is an exception and cannot be followed in a routine affair. Granting relaxation in one case by the Government cannot be cited as a precedent in other cases. In view of the fact that the relaxation is an exception and cannot be followed in a routine affair. Thus, this Court is of the firm view that all the appointments and regularizations are to be made only by following the recruitment rules in force strictly and no relaxation can be granted by citing other cases and the Government also to be cautious while exercising the powers of relaxation under Rule 48 in certain cases. 38. As far as the facts and circumstances of the present case is concerned, the learned Additional Advocate General made a submission that circumstances warranted to fill up the post of Nurses urgently. Undoubtedly, the Court can appreciate the steps taken to fill up the posts. However, the process of law must not be violated even while filling up the public posts in an urgent manner. For instance, if certain posts are to be filled up in an urgent manner, then the Government should recruit persons on temporary basis or on a contractual basis for a specific period, and in between, regular recruitment rules can be undertaken for the purpose of providing equal opportunity to all the persons who all are eligible to secure public employment. 39. Thus, it is not as if the State cannot appoint persons on contract basis on a consolidated salary. Such a concept would certainly affect the Fundamental Rights of all other eligible candidates who are all fit to occupy the public posts. Thus, ways and means can be adopted by the State even to fill up certain important posts in an urgent manner must be followed in such a way but not affecting the Fundamental Rights of all other eligible citizens in consonance with the constitutional principles. 40. In the present case on hand, the learned Additional Advocate General informed this Court that there was pressure on the State to fill up the post of the Nurses. Certain Public Interest Litigations were also filed in the High Courts. The hospitals were not functioning properly in view of the fact that there was no adequate number of nurses in the hospitals. However even under those circumstances, it is possible for the State to engage temporary nurses on contract basis or daily wage rate basis or on a consolidated pay. The hospitals were not functioning properly in view of the fact that there was no adequate number of nurses in the hospitals. However even under those circumstances, it is possible for the State to engage temporary nurses on contract basis or daily wage rate basis or on a consolidated pay. During the interregnum period, it is the duty on the part of the State to proceed with the regular recruitment process by strictly adhering the recruitment rules in force. Contrarily, they cannot appoint the persons from the selection list of the year 2015 amongst unsuccessful candidates and fill up the post on contract basis and thereafter, regularize their services and deprive the rights of all other candidates who all are waiting to secure public employment. Such a procedure adopted is undoubtedly a fraud on the constitution. If such procedures are permitted, then it would look as if back door entries are encouraged by the Courts also. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that back door entries can never be made by the State and deprive the Constitutional rights of all other citizens. The Supreme Court has not extended the services of the candidates who are all appointed by way of back door entry. The Courts are insisting the Government to respect the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizens. 41. Equal opportunity in public employment is the fundamental right of a citizen. If such a constitutional right is infringed, then the State has failed to be a model employer. There is a great demand for public employment. Lakhs and Lakhs of young people are burning their midnight lamps and putting hard work for participating in open competitive process and in the event of allowing such back door appointments as well as illegality or irregularity in appointments then the young minds, who are the backbone of our country, would lose their hope on merit and ability. If the Government makes appointments through back door entry, the same would result in denial of equal opportunity to all eligible candidates, which is guaranteed in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is the duty mandatory on the part of the Government to ensure that all public posts are filled only by providing equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates who are all aspiring to secure public employment by participating in the open competitive process. 42. Thus, it is the duty mandatory on the part of the Government to ensure that all public posts are filled only by providing equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates who are all aspiring to secure public employment by participating in the open competitive process. 42. This being the constitutional concept, philosophy and ethics, this court is of the considered opinion that the State can never be allowed to continue such illegal or irregular appointment or back door appointment and thereafter grant regularization or permanent absorption in violation of the recruitment rules in force. 43. Such appointments were made in large numbers in previous occasions by many states across the country. 44. However, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down the legal principles in the matter of regularisation and permanent absorption in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], laid down the legal principles in the matter of regularisation, permanent absorption. 45. Thus, the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench becomes the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The States are bound to follow the principles settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India unambiguously enumerated that all such back door entries are to be shut down and the State must follow the recruitment rules scrupulously without any violation. At one point of time, the Courts are duty bound to arrive at a conclusion that all such appointments are to be made transparent and by providing equal opportunity to all other citizens. 46. This being the legal principles, this Court is of the considered opinion that the State in the present case committed serious error, which resulted in unconstitutionality and thereby the Fundamental Rights of many eligible persons are violated on account of the fact that the appointments were made from and out of the unsuccessful candidates of the selection of the year 2015. 47. In view of these facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:- (1) The respondents are at liberty to proceed with the process of selection by strictly following the recruitment rules in force and by following the procedures contemplated to fill up the posts of Nurses in the Service Rules. 47. In view of these facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:- (1) The respondents are at liberty to proceed with the process of selection by strictly following the recruitment rules in force and by following the procedures contemplated to fill up the posts of Nurses in the Service Rules. (2) The unsuccessful candidates of the selection process conducted during the year 2015 and appointed pursuant to G.O. (3D).No.80, Health and Family Welfare(AA1) Department dated 08.07.2016 and G.O.(3D).No.49, Health and Family Welfare(AA1) Department dated 16.10.2017 on contract basis cannot be granted with the benefit of regularization and permanent absorption in the sanctioned posts in regular time scale of pay. All these contract employees, who were appointed in violation of the Recruitment Rules by grant of illegal relaxation, shall be permitted to participate in the process of selection in the ensuing Recruitment Notification to be issued by the respondents. (3) The respondents are directed, not to grant regularization and permanent absorption in violation of the legal principles settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the State of Karnataka V. Umadevi [(2006)] 4 SCC 1] are becomes the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (4) The respondents are directed to allow the contract employees appointed in the cadre of Nurses to continue in service till the sanctioned posts, are filled up by way of regular Recruitment process in accordance with the rules in force. It is made clear that soon after the regular appointments are made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force, the services of all those contract employees are directed to be discharged. (5) The respondents are directed to conduct the Recruitment for the Post of Doctors, Nurses, Para Medical Staffs etc., periodically as per the MRB Rules in force to avoid such unnecessary administrative exigencies in the matter of providing decent Medical facility to the citizen of this great Nation. 48. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.