JUDGMENT & ORDER : Manish Choudhury, J. Heard Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Though service of notice on the respondent nos. 4 & 5 was deemed to be complete on 30.08.2017, none has appeared for the said two respondents since then as well as today on call. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging, inter-alia, the vires of that part of the Mizoram School Education Department (Group ‘A’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2013 [‘the 2013 Rules’, for short] wherein it has been prescribed that the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) under the School Education Department, Govt. of Mizoram is to be filled up 100% by way of promotion from the grade of Science Consultant who possesses the minimum requisite qualification for direct recruitment for Science Consultant, with not less than 5 years of regular service in the grade. In the alternative, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) with the invocation of relaxation clause contained in Rule 8 of the 2013 Rules. 3. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Laboratory Bearer in the office of the Science Promotion Officer, Aizawl under the Directorate of Education, Mizoram by an order dated 31.07.1982 against a post sanctioned on 01.04.1981. By an order dated 29.04.1988, the petitioner was promoted as Laboratory Assistant on ad-hoc basis against a post sanctioned vide no. FMC.44/85(A) dated 18.07.1986 with effect from the date of his joining duties until further orders or till regular appointment was made, whichever was earlier. The ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner in the post of Laboratory Assistant in the office of the Science Promotion Officer came to be regularized with retrospective effect from 16.01.1989 by an office order dated 05.07.1989 passed by the Director of School Education, Mizoram. According to the petitioner, the order of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Laboratory Assistant was made in consonance of the provisions in the relevant recruitment rules existing at that point of time. 3.1. According to the petitioner, the order of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Laboratory Assistant was made in consonance of the provisions in the relevant recruitment rules existing at that point of time. 3.1. In the year 2004, the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed a set of rules viz. the Mizoram Education & Human Resources Development Department (SCERT Wing) (Group ‘B’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2004 [‘the 2004 Rules’, for short] to regulate the matters relating to recruitment to the post of Science Supervisor under the Education and Human Resources Development Department (SCERT Wing), Govt. of Mizoram. As per the said 2004 Rules, the post of Science Supervisor was to be filled up 100% by way of promotion from the grade of Laboratory Assistant of Science Promotion Wing with 3 (three) years regular service in the grade and there was no specific prescription with regard to educational qualifications. 3.2. In terms of the said 2004 Rules and pursuant to direction made by this Court in a writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 63/2006 [Sri Zonunthara vs. State of Mizoram & 3 others] preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Science Supervisor, SCERT (Science Promotion Wing) by an office order dated 30.05.2007 on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). 3.3. When the petitioner was serving in the post of Science Supervisor, the Mizoram Education & Human Resource Department (Group ‘B’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 1988 [‘the 1988 Rules’, for short], framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, were in force. In the said 1988 Rules, it was provided that the 331/3% of posts in the grade of Science Consultant were to be filled up by promotion from the grade of Science Supervisor and the incumbent in the Science Supervisor must have held the post for not less than 3 years. 3.4. By a notification dated 22.11.2011, the Government in the School Education Department promoted the petitioner from the post of Science Supervisor to the post of Science Consultant under SCERT, on the recommendation of the Mizoram Public Service Commission. After being so promoted, the petitioner has been serving in the post of Science Consultant till date. 3.4. By a notification dated 22.11.2011, the Government in the School Education Department promoted the petitioner from the post of Science Supervisor to the post of Science Consultant under SCERT, on the recommendation of the Mizoram Public Service Commission. After being so promoted, the petitioner has been serving in the post of Science Consultant till date. 3.5 At the time of his promotion to the Science Consultant, the Mizoram Education & Home Resource Department (Group ‘A’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 1987 [‘the 1987 Rules’, for short] were in force which used to regulate the matters of promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Science Promotion Wing). As per the said 1987 Rules, a set of rules also framed in exercise the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the post of Deputy Director (Science Promotion Wing) was to be filled up 100% by way of promotion failing which, by transfer on deputation. The criteria prescribed therein for promotion was that the incumbent had to serve as a Lecturer in Science Gallery/Science Consultant for at least 5 years in regular manner in the grade. 3.6 When the petitioner was expecting consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Science Promotion Wing), the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, has framed another set of rules viz. the Mizoram School Education Department (Group ‘A’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2013 [‘the 2013 Rules’, for short] to regulate the method of appointment to the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) under the School Education Department, Mizoram. It is a part of the 2013 Rules regulating the method of appointment to the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT), which has been put to challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the repeal of the 1987 Rules and its replacement by the 2013 Rules. As per the 2013 Rules, the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) is to be filled up 100% by way of promotion. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the repeal of the 1987 Rules and its replacement by the 2013 Rules. As per the 2013 Rules, the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) is to be filled up 100% by way of promotion. In so far as impugned part of the 2013 Rules is concerned, it has prescribed that the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) is to be filled up from the grade of Science Consultant who possesses the minimum requisite qualification for direct recruitment for Science Consultant, with not less than 5 years of regular service in the said grade. According to the petitioner, the educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment in the post of Science Consultant is (i) At least a 2nd class Master degree in any Science subject including Mathematics with not less than 5 years experience of teaching Science in a recognized Institution not below secondary school level, or (ii) B.Sc with Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Botany or Zoology and a post graduate degree/teachers training with experience of teaching Science for not less than 5 years in a recognized secondary school. Working knowledge of Mizo language has been prescribed as a desirable qualification. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that when he was appointed as a Laboratory Bearer in the year 1982, he possessed the requisite qualification prescribed for the said post. During the subsequent periods also when he was promoted to the post of Laboratory Assistant, Science Supervisor and Science Consultant he fulfilled the necessary criteria to be promoted. It is when he has been serving in the post of Science Consultant, the recruitment rules have been changed to his detriment and prejudice. It is his further case that though he does not have the prescribed qualification for direct recruitment laid down for the post of Science Consultant for being promoted to the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) as per the 2013 Rules, he by dint of his long years of experience in the post of Science Consultant has acquired the eligibility to discharge of the duties and responsibilities of the post. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has expertise to man the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) since it is an administrative post. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has expertise to man the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) since it is an administrative post. For an incumbent to hold the said post, it is not that essential for the incumbent of the said post to have qualification in Science, he submits. 6. Though in the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of a part of the 2013 Rules in so far as the qualifications prescribed for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) is concerned, indicated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, during the course of hearing, submitted that he is not urging the same. Instead, he has referred to Rule 8 of the 2013 Rules in support of his contentions in respect of the petitioner’s alternative prayer. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his such submissions, has referred to a Judgment & Order dated 13.10.2015 passed by a coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 96/2012 [Sh. Lalsangzuala Ralte vs. State of Mizoram & 3 others] wherein the Court considered the provisions of Rule 8 of the Mizoram Education and Human Resources Development Department (SCERT Wing Group ‘B’ Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2004, which is pari materia to Rule 8 of the 2013 Rules. He has submitted that the petitioner therein, like the present petitioner, was also found deficient of educational qualifications prescribed for promotion to the post of Technical/Process Cameraman/Production Assistant (Educational Technology) which was to be filled up from the post of Technician with not less than 7 years of service in the grade plus Bachelor Degree from a recognized University. 7.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the provisions of the Mizoram Agriculture Service Rules, 2009, more particularly, the relaxation clause contained therein in Rule 21 thereof, and a Notification dated 11.11.2014 whereby the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (GSW), Government had relaxed the concerned rule in favour of one Sri Pu. Lalrinliana for consideration of his case for promotion to Grade-I as well as a consequent Notification dated 27.07.2015 whereby said Sri Pu. Lalrinliana was promoted to the post of Director of Agriculture, a Grade-I post in the Mizoram Agriculture Service on the recommendation of the Mizoram Public Service Commission. 7.2. Lalrinliana for consideration of his case for promotion to Grade-I as well as a consequent Notification dated 27.07.2015 whereby said Sri Pu. Lalrinliana was promoted to the post of Director of Agriculture, a Grade-I post in the Mizoram Agriculture Service on the recommendation of the Mizoram Public Service Commission. 7.2. With the support of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner should also be considered in the similar manner. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel, by referring to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 – 3, has submitted that the Directorate of State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT) was created in the year 2008 after bifurcation from the Directorate of School Education. It was on the recommendation made by the Education Reforms Commission, Mizoram of 2008-2009 in its report, a proposal was moved to amend the existing recruitment rules for regulating recruitment of qualified personnel to the posts of Science Supervisor, Science Consultant and Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing under the SCERT and the decision in that regard was conveyed by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (General Service Wing), Government of Mizoram on 27.04.2012. According to the State respondents, the Science Promotion Wing under the SCERT plays a vital role such as (i) Academic Advisor in the field of Science and Mathematics Education; (ii) imparting training to Science and Mathematics Teachers; (iii) Conducting Workshop/Science Exhibition; (iv) compilation of Science and Mathematics text books for High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools; (v) development of curriculum in Science subjects, etc. The Deputy Director is the Academic head of Science Promotion Wing under the SCERT and the incumbent must have the qualification and expertise to give scientific inputs primarily in the field of Science. As the qualification prescribed in the 1987 Rules were found irrelevant and redundant, the 2013 Rules have been brought in to keep in conformity with the changing times so that the incumbent can discharge the duties and responsibilities of the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) in an effective manner. 8.1. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not urged the aspect regarding the vires of the impugned part of the 2013 Rules, the learned State counsel has submitted that no submission is required in that respect. 8.1. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not urged the aspect regarding the vires of the impugned part of the 2013 Rules, the learned State counsel has submitted that no submission is required in that respect. In so far as the prayer regarding relaxation of the 2013 Rules is concerned, the learned State counsel has not disputed the submissions made in relation to the direction made in the order dated 13.10.2015 in the writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 96/2012 as well as the promotion of Sri Pu Lalrinliana to the post of Director of Agriculture in the Mizoram Agriculture Service with the invocation of the relaxation clause in the Mizoram Agriculture Service Rules, 2009. 8.2. Learned State counsel has submitted that there are other incumbents like the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 5 who are serving in the post of Science Consultant as on date, having the requisite qualification to be considered for promotion for the Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) under the 2013 Rules. Even if the case of the petitioner is considered for relaxation of the rules, the same cannot be considered to the exclusion of the other eligible incumbents serving in the post of Science Consultant for promotion to the post of the Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT). 9. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it has been found that the issue has become confined to Rule 8 of the 2013 Rules which has provided the power of relaxation to the Governor. For ready reference, Rule 8 of the 2013 Rules is reproduced hereunder. “8. Power to relax – Where the Governor is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, he may, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultation with the Mizoram Public Service Commission through the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons.” 10. Rule 8 of the 2013 Rules has reserved the power to the Governor by providing that if he is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, he may, after consultation with the Mizoram Public Service Commission through the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, by an order with reasons recorded therein, relax the provisions of the 2013 Rules with respect to any class or category of persons. This Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to exercise such powers to override the provisions of the rules framed in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as they are legislative in nature and character, on the consideration that a person, though not having the educational qualification under such rules, shall be promoted to a higher post merely on the basis of his experience. Such a direction would tantamount to altering the provision made by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is seen that the power to relax any of the provisions of the 2013 Rules with respect to any class or category of persons vests exclusively in the Governor as provided by Rule 8 and such power cannot be taken over by the Court. 11. The Division Bench in its order dated 13.10.2015, took note of the settled position of law that the power of relaxation can be invoked to meet a particular hardship even in an individual case, by referring to the decisions in Amrit Singh vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1980) 3 SCC 393 , and in M.Venkateswarlu and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 167 . As the basic grievance of the petitioner therein was that he had been made to stagnate in his service career because of insistence of the degree qualifications, the Division Bench was of the opinion, in view of the rule of relaxation contained in the concerned recruitment rules, that the State respondents should dispassionately consider the case of the petitioner therein with the invocation of such relaxation clause and also by taking into account the stagnation being faced by the petitioner therein. 12. 12. In State of Gujarat and others vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the two terms ‘eligibility’ and ‘qualification’ are not synonymous. ‘Eligibility’ connotes the minimum criteria for selection, that may be laid down by the executive authority/legislature by way of any statute or rules, while the term ‘qualification’ may connote any norms laid down by the appointing authorities. Before a candidate is considered for a post, he must fulfill the eligibility criteria. The appointing authority is competent to fix a higher score for selection than the one required to be attained for mere eligibility, but by way of its natural corollary, it cannot be taken to mean that eligibility/norms fixed by the statute or rules can be relaxed for the purpose to the extent that same may be lower than the ones fixed by the statute. It has also been observed that in a particular case, where it is so required, relaxation of even educational qualifications may be permissible, provided that the rules empower the authority to relax such eligibility in general, or with regard to an individual case or class of cases of undue hardship. A note of caution has also been made to the effect that the power of relaxation should be exercised for justifiable reasons and it must not be exercised arbitrarily, only to favour an individual. The power to relax the recruitment rules or any other rule made by the State Government/authority is conferred upon by the Government/authority to meet any emergent situation where injustice might have been caused or is likely to be caused to any person or class of persons or where the working of the said rules might have become impossible. 13. Reverting back to the case in hand, it is found that the petitioner has been serving in the post of Science Consultant since 22.11.2011. The services of the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 5 who were earlier serving as contractual employees, were regularized to the post of Science Consultant by an order dated 20.01.2014. It is stated that the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) had fallen vacant on and from 31.08.2014 on the retirement of the then incumbent on superannuation. 4 and the respondent no. 5 who were earlier serving as contractual employees, were regularized to the post of Science Consultant by an order dated 20.01.2014. It is stated that the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) had fallen vacant on and from 31.08.2014 on the retirement of the then incumbent on superannuation. The post of Science Consultant is the feeder post for filling up the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) by way of 100% promotion. 14. Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, more particularly, the fact that the petitioner has been serving in the post of Science Consultant for a period of more than 9 years, we are of the considered opinion that as the 2013 Rules itself has provided for the power of relaxation of any of the provisions of the 2013 Rules with respect to any class or category of persons, the respondents should consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of Rule 8, quoted above, by taking into account all the relevant factors into consideration for the purpose of further consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Science Promotion Wing (SCERT) and it is accordingly directed. The required exercise in terms of this order shall be carried out and completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of furnishing a certified copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not observed anything as regards the merits of the claim of the petitioner as regards relaxation, save and except to the extent indicated above. 15. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.