A recent judgment reported by Verdictum dealt with a government employer that relaxed an educational/professional qualification requirement for one employee but refused the identical relaxation to another employee who was similarly placed — same cadre, same duties, same recruitment rules. The affected employee challenged this as discriminatory, and the court held that once discretion to relax a qualification is exercised for one employee, it cannot be arbitrarily withheld from an identically placed colleague without a rational, demonstrable distinction.
The ruling rests on Article 14 (equality before law, requiring non-arbitrariness and a rational nexus for any differentiation) read with Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment). Relaxation powers usually derive from service rules framed under Article 309; courts don't object to the discretion itself but scrutinise its uneven exercise. Remedies lie via Article 226 (High Courts) or Article 32/appellate jurisdiction (Supreme Court), since this involves fundamental rights against the State, not mere contract.
Exam takeaway: remember the Article 14–16–309 combination in service-law arbitrariness cases, the 'intelligible differentia with rational nexus' classification test, and that selective denial of a benefit granted to a similarly situated employee is itself unconstitutional discrimination, not just an administrative lapse.